Leading indicators jump 1.4%, topping estimates

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...dicators_N.htm

NEW YORK (AP) — A gauge of future economic activity jumped 1.4% in March, the fastest pace of growth in 10 months.
The rise in the Conference Board's index of leading economic indictors suggests economic growth is likely to continue for the next three to six months.

Economists polled by Thomson Reuters had expected the index to grow 0.9% last month.

The report Monday also said the leading indicators' growth was 0.4% in February and 0.6% in January, up from previous estimates of 0.1% and 0.3%.

"The indicators point to a slow recovery that should continue over the next few months," Ken Goldstein, an economist at the Conference Board, said.

The gauge is made up of data on housing, jobs, manufacturing and financial markets, most of which has already been released. Seven of the 10 indicators increased in March, led by a big difference between overnight and 10-year interest rates, known as the interest rate spread, and a pickup in average weekly hours worked in the manufacturing sector.

A widening gap between short- and long-term interest rates is often a positive signal. It can mean investors expect economic activity to pick up.

Building permits for homes and rising stock prices also propped up the index. A decrease in consumer expectations, the money supply and manufacturers' new orders for capital goods weighed it down.

Some of the bounce was due to a rebound from the harsh winter that suppressed activity in the housing market and at factories in the Northeast, said economist Josh Shapiro at research firm MFR.

But the stronger reading also reflects recent data about the economy, said Jennifer Lee, an economist at BMO Capital Markets. Consumer spending at shops, employment figures and corporate spending on technology have all improved.

The economy added 162,000 jobs in March, the biggest gain in three years, according to the government.

"A year ago, I don't think anyone would have seen such a nice recovery in the U.S. economy," Lee said. Last week, BMO raised its estimate for 2010 gross domestic product to 3.3% growth, up from 3.1%, because of stronger consumer spending, manufacturing and hiring.

Quote:

---

"A year ago, I don't think anyone would have seen such a nice recovery in the U.S. economy," Lee said. Last week, BMO raised its estimate for 2010 gross domestic product to 3.3% growth, up from 3.1%, because of stronger consumer spending, manufacturing and hiring.

---

I'm just saying...

The dead enders are praying that the economy doesn't recover in time before the fall elections. If they do gain control of either legislative body then you can count on them taking credit for the growing economy next February..:lol

In November the economy sucks... In Feb the economy is growing because we took control..:lol

Dems are done in November. You may as well get used to that. I doubt that ship can be righted by November. If they think this is 'the issue', a pawltry 1.4% growth, then they've lost it. Passing national heath care damn near emptied the piggy bank of political capital for the Dems. Much like Bush spent all of his political capital on Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by word

Dems are done in November. You may as well get used to that. I doubt that ship can be righted by November.

---

I wouldn't be so sure. Dems may be replaced by other Dems or independents, but the GOP has done a terrible job of repairing their image and they hardly have any time left to do anything about it.

You're on dope. Dems will lose 50 seats, minimum.

What's the over/under in the Senate, word?

4

polls are tracking for minimum of 40 in the house...2 in the senate.

Some are calling for 6 in the senate and 90 in the house, but that's a pipe dream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by word

You're on dope. Dems will lose 50 seats, minimum.

---

And you're counting chickens before they're hatched, I think. Wait and see how the financial reform plays out before assuming the Republicans will win America's trust. As it stands, McConnell is doing a piss-poor job of defending his position, and when it's all said and done, any Republicans siding with the banks are going to be playing with political dynamite.

Those who cave to the reform agenda (which the Dems will obviously brand as their own creation for political purposes) will alienate their base of hardliners, while those who don't will alienate their moderates. When it passes (and it will), a lot of Americans will see it as a triumph against the universally-hated financial industry, and that sense of victory may very well transfer to the Dems.

All to say that going by current metrics and projections is fool's gold.

You don't think the dems will lose seats in November ? Care to make a bet. You're saying....zero ? What's your number ? 10, 20,30 ....or are the dems adding seats in your mind ? Bama is just above Bush's lowest numbers ...

It looks the the teebaggers are gonna split the right-wing vote with the Repugs.

The controlling party always loses seats in midterms, that's politics....I told you this financial reform bill was next and its just what the Dems needed for Nov after taking a beating on health-care reform, their gonna lose a house, probably hold the Senate, but that's OK...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

It looks the the teebaggers are gonna split the right-wing vote with the Repugs.

---

That issue will be taken care of in the primaries. The Tea 'Party' isn't an actual party. You know that, right ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by word

That issue will be taken care of in the primaries. The Tea 'Party' isn't an actual party. You know that, right ?

---

They're really the only thing the GOP has going....I mean common, the GOP leadership is too weak to take on Limbaugh and Glen Beckkk..

Well I agree with you that those voices, along with some others have strong influence over the party. However...it's more complex than that. One problem the party has is Michael Steele, who is a weak ineffective chairman. The dems have Dean, and though he's batshit crazy, he's able to get it done.

Rush, Hannity, Beck live under a fallacy I think, with the idea the republicans win elections by moving further right, away from the center. Trouble is, I don't think that is an absolute.

The fact is, Bush was free and lose with spending, and it made a lot of conservatives mad, but they lived with it because of the terrorism fight, which most believed in. Probably still do. But compared to Bush, who pressed the gas pedal on spending, Obama has it stomped to the floor with both feet, in an upright stance going 100 miles an hour down a country road at night with his lights off, smoking a cigarette, while turning to us, the american people, saying 'hold my beer and watch this'. People might just be ready to jump out of the car and take their chances.

Repubs are going to go on and on and on about the deficit that would make Ross Perot in 92 look like Kennedy.

Well, let's see how much independents, not the most politically-intelligent creatures, care about a deficit they aren't paying for anyway when they have more money in their pockets on election night... Dean hasn't been Chairman for the Dems since Jan 09..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by word

You don't think the dems will lose seats in November ? Care to make a bet. You're saying....zero ? What's your number ? 10, 20,30 ....or are the dems adding seats in your mind ? Bama is just above Bush's lowest numbers ...

---

Of course Dems are going to lose seats -- super-majorities aren't sustainable and there are plenty of contested districts. But saying it's going to be a slaughter? I'm not there yet. And assuming the lost seats will automatically go to Reps? I'm not there yet, either. For that matter, I don't really think it's worth speculating on a seat-count at this point, for reasons I brought up earlier.

I wouldn't brag so much about the return of GDP growth. Makes you look out of touch, Dan. Unemployment will remain high for awhile, and real estate hasn't even bottomed out yet.

With no jobs recovery and no recovery in US personal wealth within immediate sight, the promise of "more money in the pocket" telling at the polls in Novermber, would seem a bit premature.

I very much doubt we'll be seeing the other side of the trough before November of this year Dan.

Quote:

---

I wouldn't brag so much about the return of GDP growth. Makes you look out of touch, Dan. Unemployment will remain high for awhile, and real estate hasn't even bottomed out yet.

---

Almost every month unemployment will get better and real estate is a collateral loss - have you tried to buy a short-sell or foreclosure lately? It's tough...

Home prices are recovering? Yes, or no.

Depends on your market, in San Antonio they are making a slow to moderate growth, but there is a lot of room for future growth when you see what you can get in SA compared to other parts of the country..

I meant in the aggregate. Of course all real estate is local. Duh.

There are still losses, but they have collateral...it's not like these are total losses...like market losses..

We can pretend all the underwater mortgages represent only paper losses, but the loss of equity can have significant financial consequences short of default.

Then, there is the rational calculation that intentional default makes more sense than paying off a note on a severely devalued property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

We can pretend all the underwater mortgages represent only paper losses, but the loss of equity can have significant financial consequences short of default.

---

Equity can be made up, homes are to live in not investments, besides banks like BOA are already reducing their exposure to home equity losses by withdrawaling people's access to their equity...

Housing has borrowed from 1 to 2 year demand incentiving purchases today with tax credits.

In addition, all them short-sales are going to preclude those sellers from getting financing for the next 2 years. Top that with FHA tightening this summer, so I'm looking for a really tough real estate market over the next 12 to 24 months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Depends on your market, in San Antonio they are making a slow to moderate growth, but there is a lot of room for future growth when you see what you can get in SA compared to other parts of the country..

---

The problem the democrats have though is that stabilized home prices in states like Texas aren't going to help them. Same goes for unemployment. The recovery is not going to affect all 50 states equally. Generally speaking, the red states are faring better than the blue states and that's going to make it harder for the democrats to point to the unemployment rate and home prices and say "look how good a job we're doing".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2centsworth

Housing has borrowed from 1 to 2 year demand incentiving purchases today with tax credits.

In addition, all them short-sales are going to preclude those sellers from getting financing for the next 2 years. Top that with FHA tightening this summer, so I'm looking for a really tough real estate market over the next 12 to 24 months.

---

Good point. I also heard some real estate expert on the radio during my morning commute talking about how there are still a lot of people getting into adjustable rate mortgages and how they're all going to get hammered 3 to 5 years from now. Tough times ahead.

Dems weren't going to win the blue-state-subsidized red-states anyway.

Quote:

---

Real estate market interventions certainly don't help home buyers who would be better off with a natural drop in prices. They don't help homeowners who would be better off having some idea when the value of their house bottoms out. They might provide a brief advantage to home sellers who are looking to unload an asset they know is about to take another swan dive; but you know, Goldman Sachs is getting sued for that kind of thing right now.

---

http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/21/sh...jacked-up-pric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

It looks the the teebaggers are gonna split the right-wing vote with the Repugs.

---

They pretty much are republicans.

They will force the GOP to run much, much more conservative candidates, further forcing moderates from voting for them.

"Yay, we have a really motivated base"

"Boo, our really motivated base is losing moderates"

(shrugs)

I really, truly have little idea how it will ultimately turn out, but my gut says that the Tea Party won't quite be as beneficial to the GOP as they seem to hope, due to this mitigating factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Good point. I also heard some real estate expert on the radio during my morning commute talking about how there are still a lot of people getting into adjustable rate mortgages and how they're all going to get hammered 3 to 5 years from now. Tough times ahead.

---

A lot of people who got those ARMs 3 to 5 years ago are just now starting to get hammered now.

Don't expect the drumbeat of foreclosures to abate.

The suck thing is that a lot of bondholders are suddenly going to find themselves owning rapidly decaying, abandoned homes, and in the position of having to pay property taxes and other unexpected expenses for those houses.