Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

China Manufacturing Prices Decline 18th Month; China Hoping to Avoid Hard Landing
Nate Silver's Continual Underestimation of Donald Trump's Chances
Economists in Fantasyland: Economists See 20% Chance of Recession That's at Least 20% Likely Already Here

China Manufacturing Prices Decline 18th Month; China Hoping to Avoid Hard Landing

Posted: 31 Jan 2016 09:22 PM PST

China's manufacturing extended its long slump according to the Caixin China General Manufacturing PMI.

Chinese manufacturers signaled a modest deterioration in operating conditions at the start of 2016, with both output and employment declining at slightly faster rates than in December. Total new business meanwhile fell at the weakest rate in seven months, and despite a faster decline in new export work. Nonetheless, lower production requirements led companies to cut back on their purchasing activity and inventories of inputs. On the prices front, both input costs and output charges fell again in January, though at the weakest rates in seven months.

Weaker client demand led manufacturers to discount their prices charged again in January, thereby extending the current sequence of deflation to 18 months (although the rate of reduction was the slowest seen since June 2015). Lower selling prices were supported by a further fall in average input costs at the start of the year. In line with the trend for charges, the rate of decline eased to the weakest in seven months. Lower cost burdens were generally linked to reduced raw material prices.

China PMI

China Hoping to Avoid Hard Landing

Commenting on the China General Manufacturing PMI™ data, Dr. He Fan, Chief Economist at Caixin Insight Group said:

"The Caixin China General Manufacturing PMI for January is 48.4, up 0.2 points from December. Sub-indexes show a softer fall in new orders, which contributed the most to the improvement in the overall figure. Recent macroeconomic indicators show the economy is still in the process of bottoming out and efforts to trim excess capacity are just starting to show results. The pressure on economic growth remains intense in light of continued global volatility. The government needs to watch economic trends closely and proactively make fine adjustments to prevent a hard landing. It also needs to push ahead with existing reform measures to strengthen market confidence and to signal its intentions clearly."

Hard Landing Definition

If China is beginning to "show results", those results aren't pretty.

Depending on how one defines "hard landing", China is doomed. A couple years ago a "hard landing" was believed to be 6% growth. By that definition, a hard landing is baked in the cake.

3% or 2% growth, or even lower is highly likely.

Perhaps a couple years from now, 3% won't seem any harder than 6% did two years ago.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Nate Silver's Continual Underestimation of Donald Trump's Chances

Posted: 31 Jan 2016 03:49 PM PST

On January 18, I sent the article below (starting with the title Nate Silver Off the Mark on Donald Trump Nomination Odds) to the New York Times as an Op-Ed.

They did not publish it.

It's hard enough getting something timely to major new organizations, and when you do, you have to sit and wait days for no response. The New York times has the best turnaround of the bunch, three days so I could have used this earlier.

This would have been more timely on the 18th and even more timely when I first started writing, but here it is now. What I have to say the is still relevant.

Nate Silver Off the Mark on Donald Trump Nomination Odds

I am a big fan of Nate Silver. His calling of the last two elections was nothing short of brilliant. However, I just cannot accept Silver's current assessment of Trump's chances of winning the Republican nomination.

In footnotes to his January 8 article Three Theories Of Donald Trump's Rise Silver expressed belief that "Trump's chances are about half of what betting markets say they are. I think they're about half that - 12 or 13 percent."

Trump Odds According to Nate Silver

Historical Precedents

Given Trump's commanding lead in the polls, one might instinctively think Silver is crazy. But Silver cites historical precedents:

Polls before the first primary are not that useful
Political outsiders do not win elections
Establishment candidates do win elections

To that Silver adds "Trump could lose New Hampshire either to a surging Cruz or if one of the several establishment candidates — Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, John Kasich — can consolidate the support of more moderate/establishment Republican voters."

In defense of Silver, I would personally add there are 12 Republican candidates and anything could happen, in theory. One chance in 12 would be just over an 8 percent chance.

Bit of Realism

Chances are not all equal. So let's place some odds on some additional candidates.

What are the realistic odds that Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rand Paul, or Rick Santorum will win the nomination?

As long as we are taking history into consideration, Ben Carson has flamed out. Has a flame-out ever recovered? Does Rand Paul (my preference) have more than a 0.1% chance?

Does anyone in the above group of eight have more than a 0.5% chance? If so, who and why?

Even if you gave them all a 1% chance, which seems generous, the total combined odds would be 8%. Nonetheless, let's make that assumption and place it in a new chart.

Interpretation of Nate Silver Odds

Does the combination of Bush, Rubio, and Cruz really have a 79% of winning the nomination?

I think not.

Double the combined odds of Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Rick Santorum to an amazing 16% and the Bush, Cruz, Rubio odds would still be 71%.

Triple the odds of the "group of eight" winning the nomination to a preposterous 24% and the "group of three" would still have a 63% chance of winning.

Mathematical Bias

By focusing solely on the odds of Trump winning, while placing no odds on the others, Silver introduces a mathematical bias far beyond what history can reasonably suggest.

Let's put a spotlight on Bush. Jeb Bush is polling 4.8% nationally.

Silver discounts national polls. I sympathize. But how far does one want to take that idea given that primaries start less than two weeks away?

Do candidates polling less than 5% at this stage often win nominations?

If one generously gives a Bush 5-15% chance of winning the momination, the combined Cruz Rubio odds would be something in the 65-75% range, assuming the group of eight has an 8% chance and Trump a 13% chance.

It all has to add up to 100%.

Arguably, the best chance for Bush and the ABT (Anybody But Trump) crowd has is if the Republican convention is deadlocked.

Until we see the results from Super-Tuesday and the polls of the states that follow, a deadlocked convention is a distinct possibility, but not one I have seen Silver depend on.

Other Flaws in Silver's Odds Estimates

We are dealing with humans, in real time, not history.

History suggests fringe candidates don't usually win elections, but they can. Jimmy Carter was unknown, but he won. Obama was not supposed to beat Hillary, but he did.

Yet, flame-outs are more likely. Carson did just that. So have many others.

Trump hasn't yet.

Rather than insisting a historical flame-out is still likely, Silver just might wish to consider reasons Trump will not flame out.

For example, a Gallup Poll headline from January 18 plays straight into Donald Trump's hands: Majority in U.S. Now Dissatisfied With Security From Terrorism.

Does Unpopularity Matter? When?

Silver notes Donald Trump Is Really Unpopular With General Election Voters.

Does unpopularity mean "People won't vote for the guy?"

I don't particularly like Trump. But I would vote for him over Clinton or Sanders.

What did Carson have before he flamed out other than he was "likable"? Amusingly, he's still the most likable Republican.

Carson comes across as sincere, and he is likable. But I would not vote for Carson under any circumstances. I would instead "waste my vote" and write in Rand Paul or vote for the Libertarian candidate.

Trump draws amazing crowds. Silver dismisses that. Yet, the last time someone generated this much crowd energy was Ronald Regan.

This is not a basketball game. Nor is this a one-on-one play with polls all breaking one way at the last minute. Those are areas in which Silver excels.

This is a one-on-many play, where voter attitudes have consistently sided with Trump, no matter who he offends. It's a mistake to discount such sentiment.

Like him or not, Trump is clever. For Republicans, he is on the right side of security, guns, abortion, and China. That's quite a bit.

And he's also a genuine outsider at a time nearly every other Republican is pretending to be one.

Is there any reason to suspect voter attitudes on terrorism, on Trump, or on Washington insiders will change in the next few weeks?

Odds of Winning it All

I suggest Trump's odds of winning the nomination are far more than what odds makers presume. And if Trump wins the nomination, I suspect his odds of him winning it all would be about 50%.

My rationale is that Hillary may not win the nomination. There is some chance of a criminal indictment related to emails. Sanders could pull out an upset. Odds of one of those have to be higher than the alleged 13% chance Silver assigns to Trump.

AWM (Angry White Men) will be a factor, perhaps totally negating any personal dislike of Trump.

Most importantly, I think the US approaching, if not already in a recession. Eight years ago, Obama blew dissatisfied Republican out of the water on the heels of a big recession that had just started.

Why can't that happen again? If anything, history suggests it will.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Economists in Fantasyland: Economists See 20% Chance of Recession That's at Least 20% Likely Already Here

Posted: 31 Jan 2016 10:32 AM PST

Economists have a perfect track record of 100% failure in ability to predict a recession. In a recession that's at least 20% likely to have already started, Economists See 20% Chance of US Recession this Year.

A Financial Times survey of 51 economists, conducted in the days after the Fed's January meeting, underscores the impact of the past month's severe market turbulence and a string of lacklustre economic reports out of the US and China.

The fear that the world's largest economy — considered the lone engine of global growth — is on the verge of recession has intensified. In the FT's December survey economists had put the odds of a US recession at 15 per cent during the next two years. Now, they see a one-in-five chance of recession in the next 12 months.

Economists surveyed by the FT emphasised that while the odds of a recession had climbed, a large majority still expected the US to escape one. Several who have fielded increased investor calls on the subject said that the conversation had been skewed because of the near obsession with the price of oil — a point that they argued had more to do with supply than global demand.

Mr Gapen, who put the odds of a recession between 10 and 15 per cent, said that he still thought strong consumption trends would keep the US economy from contraction.

Rate Hikes Odds

Less than 5% of economists see a greater than 50% chance of recession.

Hikes Foreseen in December Survey

In December not a single economist thought the Fed would hike zero times in 2016.

Hikes Foreseen in January Survey

CME Fedwatch Odds

The Fed Fund futures show a nearly 50% chance of no hikes this year.

Fantasyland Material

In contrast to Fed Fund futures, the latest Financial Times survey shows economists still expect two or three hikes this year. Over 10% of the economists foresee four hikes.

This is truly Fantasyland material.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Economy News

31.1.16

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

No comments:

Post a Comment