Labor Picture Less Worrisome Than It Appears

As the creator of a key Federal Reserve metric has noted, its use as a recession predictor may not be appropriate.

Joshua Jammer

Jeffrey Schulze

A rising unemployment rate and triggering of the Sahm Rule in July  spooked financial markets at the time. But a deeper dive into the underlying drivers of the rising unemployment rate showed less reason for worry than it previously suggested at first glance. A more recent recovery in hiring has added further mixed signals on the rule’s efficacy.

The Sahm Rule, first published in 2019, states that “when the three-month moving average of national unemployment is 0.5 percentage point or more above its low over the prior twelve months, we are in the early months of a recession.”

While it is more of an observation than a causal rule, underpinning this “statistical regularity,” as Fed Chair Jerome Powell described it, are real dynamics. One of them is inertia, or the notion that an object in motion tends to stay in motion. Historically, a 0.5-percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate has presaged a much larger, nonlinear increase. Also underlying the rule is the historically tight relationship between labor income and consumption. In other words: An increase in job losses is typically concerning for the economy, as spending would be expected to decline proportionally.

Change to Numerator or Denominator?

The unemployment rate can change for several reasons, however, including a person losing a job or an increase in the number of people who were on the sidelines but have since begun looking for work.

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

While either of these dynamics can trigger the Sahm Rule, the economic implications of a rising unemployment rate due to an increase in job losses differ from those that are due to an increase in the number of people seeking employment. For one, the former dynamic represents a loss of labor income (reducing the outlook for future consumption), while the latter does not.

In looking at the 12 months prior to past instances of the Sahm Rule being triggered since 1967 (the farthest back the data for these classifications go), our analysis shows that 83% of the increase in the number of unemployed people has come from job losers and job leavers, on average, with just 16% coming from re-entrants and new entrants (the total does not sum to 100% due to rounding).

If the 1981 double-dip recessions are excluded, given that many re-entrants at the time were likely employed prior to the 1980 recession and thus may be more appropriately thought of as job losers than re-entrants, the breakdown would stand at 87% and 12%, respectively.

Today’s Economy

The present situation bears little resemblance to these past periods, however. Over the past year, 32% (twice the historical average, inclusive of 1981) of the increase in unemployment has come from re-entrants and new entrants. If we focus on 2024, specifically—the period when the unemployment rate began to persistently rise—the share from re-entrants and new entrants is even higher at 51%, more than three times the historical norm.

Exhibit 1: Breaking Down Rising Unemployment by Reason For Unemployment


This unique dynamic has even been noted by American economist Claudia Sahm, the rule’s namesake. Specifically, she observed that “[t]he Sahm [R]ule is likely overstating the labor market’s weakening due to unusual shifts in the labor supply caused by the pandemic [re-entrants] and immigration [new entrants].”

A Different Approach

A second approach to understanding why unemployment has risen uses what is known as labor force status flows, or the flow of people moving between states of being employed, unemployed and not in the labor force. This flows approach could be thought of as a bathtub model: the number of unemployed is the water in the tub, while the faucet adds newly unemployed people and the drain simultaneously removes unemployed people (through hires or labor force exits).

The flows approach helps explain why unemployment is rising because, isolating the different states, we can see how much of the change in unemployment is from net hiring, as opposed to people moving in and out of the labor force. What we see here is that, in 2023, far more people cumulatively moved from unemployed to employed than vice versa. This suggests strong net hiring and that net flows into the labor force account for more than all of the increase in the unemployment rate so far this year.

Exhibit 2: Breaking Down Rising Unemployment by Labor Force Status Flows


While historical comparisons are limited here (this dataset only dates to 1990), we believe this approach supports the conclusion that a substantial portion of the increase in unemployment is the result of a growing labor force, as opposed to an increase in job losses, and thus the outlook for future consumption is not as negative as the pickup in unemployment alone would suggest.

Over the past few years, several traditional recessionary signals have become less reliable, posing a challenge for macroeconomists and financial markets. While the Sahm Rule is useful, we have long believed that taking any recessionary signal at face value can be fraught with peril, and we instead seek to understand the “why” behind any indicator.

That has led to our conclusion that the job market today is best characterized as normalizing from extreme tightness in the post-pandemic period.

Therefore, with a minimal increase in workers losing their jobs, we believe the outlook for future consumption should remain supportive and contribute to a continuation of the current expansion.

Jeffrey Schulze, CFA, is a managing director and head of economic and market strategy at ClearBridge Investments. Joshua Jamner, CFA, is a director and investment strategy analyst at ClearBridge Investments.

This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal or tax advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice. Any opinions of the author do not necessarily reflect the stance of ISS STOXX or its affiliates.

Tags: , , , ,

LSV Asset Management Sued by Former Execs Over $100M in Lost Equity

An Illinois lawsuit alleges the plaintiffs resigned or retired, believing they would retain ownership in the firm.




LSV Asset Management is facing a suit filed by four former executives who claim they were deprived of more than $100 million when the investment firm forced them to sell their equity at a significantly reduced price.

The lawsuit also names as defendants Josef Lakonishok, LSV’s CEO, CIO and founder, along with current LSV executives Josh O’Donnell, Kevin Phelan and Menno Vermeulen. According to the company’s website, Phelan and O’Donnell are LSV’s chief operating officer and chief compliance officer, respectively, while Vermeulen is a portfolio manager and senior quantitative analyst.

The plaintiffs in the complaint, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, are Han Qu, Bhaskaran Swaminathan, Peter Young and Simon Zhang. Young held the title of director of client portfolio services, Swaminathan formerly was director of research, Zhang was a senior quantitative analyst, and Qu was a senior quantitative analyst and one of LSV’s founding employees. According to the complaint, the four collectively worked at the firm for more than 90 years.

The four allege that during their tenure at LSV, they were pressured by management to acquire shares as a “sign of loyalty” and of “being a team player.” They ended up paying more than $25 million for equity in the firm, which they say was largely financed by bank debt and purportedly entitled them to millions of dollars in annual distributions. The lawsuit alleges LSV represented to the plaintiffs repeatedly throughout their employment that they would own the purchased shares outright when the bank debt was paid off.  

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

According to the complaint, the four plaintiffs invested more than $2 million in cash—which it said was difficult for many of them to cover—and incurred more than $22 million in bank debt. The complaint also alleges they were required to forego salaries and other pay raises during most of their careers in exchange for the purported benefits of buying equity shares in LSV. They also claim LSV encouraged them to incorporate the shares in their estate plans, which led the four to either resign or retire under the belief they would retain ownership and continue to receive distributions after they left.

“Plaintiffs would not have resigned or retired if they knew defendants intended to strip them of the purchased LSV shares the minute they left the company,” the complaint states.

“LSV utilized a web of agreements for the purpose of retaining control over LSV employee stock,” the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, Brian Procel, a partner at Procel Law PC, said in a statement. “And just like a yo-yo, LSV pulled the string at the time of its choosing, to deprive its own executives of the shares they worked for decades to acquire.” The plaintiff’s are also represented by Duggan Bertsch.

Tim Spreitzer, a spokesperson for LSV Asset Management, said in an emailed statement that the firm believes the claims are rife with inaccuracies and without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in any future proceedings,” adding that the lawsuit is not related to the firm’s investment management activities for its clients.

Publicly traded financial services company SEI Investments, which owns a 38.6% stake in LSV, declined to comment.

Related Stories:

SEI Investments Fined for Client Money Failings

Investment Firm Pays $2.5M to Settle Allegations It Defrauded Madoff Victim Fund

Illinois TRS Commits Nearly $6 Billion

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

«