MONDAY REPORT
March 12th, 2018

 
Quote of the Week:

"Don`t pray for an easy life. Pray for the strength to endure a difficult one."
Bruce Lee

National Economic Notes:

Global Business Confidence: +1.7

Sentiment among global businesses remains strong, unshaken by the recent volatility in global financial markets. Close to one-half of respondents to the survey say that current business conditions are improving and that they will be even better by this summer. Negative responses to the survey questions remain close to a record low. Business confidence is consistent with a global economy that is expanding well above its potential.

 

U.S. International Trade Deficit: +$3.5 b

The U.S. trade deficit widened more than expected in January and this doesn't bode well for first quarter GDP growth and won't sit well with the Trump administration. The nominal trade deficit widened from a revised $53.9 billion in December (previously $53.1 billion). The deficit came in worse than either we or the consensus anticipated. Nominal exports fell 1.3%; imports were little changed. Utah's exports were $0.526 billion for Manufactured Commodities and 0.060 billion for Services or just ½ of 1% of the U.S. Total.  More ...  www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/tradnewsrelease.htm

 

Composite Leading Indicators: 100.1

The OECD composite leading indicator stayed steady at 100.1 in January but improved from the 99.9 average for last year. The headline therefore does not point to any notable change in the OECD member economies. The gauge for the euro zone held at 100.6 for the fourth consecutive month. Germany shed 0.1 point from a month earlier, but such a small change is no cause for alarm. The U.S. gauge stayed stable at 99.9. The leading indicator for Russia printed at a solid 101.5, from the downwardly revised 101.3 in the previous month, indicating a firming recovery.

 

Beige Book: +2.70
The Moody's Analytics Beige Book Index posted a rating of 158 for March's edition of the Federal Reserve report, increasing for the fourth consecutive Beige Book. March's reassuring reading provides additional evidence that the U.S. regional economies are making strides and the reading is more than 40 points higher than March 2017's reading of 117. Regionally, the index held steady in nine Federal Reserve districts, increased in the Chicago and Minneapolis districts, and fell in the New York district.

 

St. Louis Fed Financial Stress Index: -1.11

Financial stress conditions tightened last week following a down week on Wall Street. The St. Louis Fed Financial Stress Index fell to -1.11 but remains significantly elevated relative to the past several months. The S&P 500 declined 2%, reversing recent gains. The recovery also increased equity volatility, with the VIX rising 19% to 19.6. Interest rates ticked slightly lower, with the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury declining 2 basis points.

 

Moody's Analytics Policy Uncertainty Index : -0.1

Policy uncertainty slipped but remains elevated. The good news is that the economic costs have been minimal, as elevated uncertainty has occurred through the expansion and businesses appear to have adjusted. Still, a significant increase in policy uncertainty, if it were to occur, shouldn't be ignored, because it could weigh on financial market conditions and hurt business investment. The four-week moving average in our U.S. policy uncertainty index was essentially unchanged at 107.3 in the week ended March 2.

 

Productivity and Costs: 0%

There was a small upward revision to fourth quarter U.S. GDP, but it doesn't alter the trend, which remains poor. Productivity is now shown to have been unchanged in the fourth quarter (previously -0.1% at an annualized rate). This leaves productivity up 1.1% on a year-ago basis. After falling for two consecutive quarters, nonfarm unit labor costs are now shown to have risen 2.5% at an annualized rate in the fourth quarter (previously 2%).

 

ADP National Employment Report: 235,000

The labor market remains on cruise control. In February, private-sector payrolls expanded by 235,000 on net. This furthers a string of outsize job gains that have accrued as the economic expansion persists. The pace of growth averaged a strong 212,000 jobs per month in 2017, and 2018 is setting up to be another stellar year for the labor market. Goods producers have made steady progress, adding 37,000 jobs in February. Meanwhile, service providers are driving the majority of growth; payrolls increased by 198,000.

 

Challenger Report: 35,369

The labor market engine is running smoothly. Employers announced only 35,369 job cuts in February, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas' compilation. Job cut announcements in February were down 20% from January and 4.3% from February 2017. Across industries, cuts were highest in retail, which announced 6,106 cuts over the month. Overall, job cut announcements are low historically as companies hold onto their workers and hiring announcements remain elevated.

 

Jobless Claims: +21,000

The labor market shows no signs of slowing. Initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits rose 21,000 from the previous week's unrevised level to 231,000 in the week ended March 3. The increase is not cause for concern as the previous week's level was the lowest since late 1969 and new filings remain low historically. The four-week moving average rose 2,000 from the previous week's unrevised average to 222,500. Continuing claims fell 64,000 from the previous week's revised level to 1.87 million in the week ended February 24, and the insured unemployment rate slid 0.1 percentage point from the previous week's unrevised rate to 1.3%.

 

ISM Nonmanufacturing Index: -0.4

The ISM surveys for February were solid, suggesting the breadth of growth remains fairly broad. The ISM nonmanufacturing survey's composite index slipped from 59.9 in January to 59.5 in February. Despite the decline, the index remains above its fourth quarter average of 57.7. The details were mixed as new orders and business activity increased. The big disappointment was employment, which dropped from 61.6 in January to 55. Overall, the ISM survey doesn't alter the risks to our estimate of first quarter GDP growth, currently tracking 2.4% at an annualized rate. Survey-based and hard data don't always tell the same story, and the ISM surveys capture changes in both economic conditions and sentiment.

 

Factory Orders (M3): -1.4%

Factory orders took a step back in January, shedding 1.4%, as durable goods orders suffered the largest decline since July. The weakness was broader than we expected, and the nondefense aircraft and defense segments were mainly to blame, and there were other soft spots. That included the important core capital goods segment, where orders fell 0.3%, though the change for December was revised upward. Corresponding shipments also shed 0.1%, marking the first decline in a year. Shipments in nondurable goods are trending consistently higher thanks to stronger demand, adding 0.8% in January. Inventories increased 0.3%.

 

Semiconductor Billings: -1%

Global semiconductor sales had an impressive start to the year. In January, the three-month moving average of global sales reached $37.6 billion. Though this marks a 1% decline from December, sales are up 22.7% from January 2017. Furthermore, this is the best January performance on record and the outlook remains strong.

 

Quarterly Services Survey: +5%

The Quarterly Services Survey report bodes well for revisions to fourth quarter consumer spending. U.S. selected services' total revenue for the fourth quarter was up 5% from the fourth quarter of 2016 on a not seasonally adjusted basis. Information services revenue rose 6.5%, professional services grew slightly by 1.3%, and administrative services gained 6.5% on a year-ago basis.

 

Financial Accounts - Nonfinancial Corporate: +$.60tril

Nonfinancial corporate business balance sheets improved in the fourth quarter. Net worth of nonfinancial corporations rose 2.6% from the prior quarter, marking the third straight quarterly gain. A strengthening global economy coupled with fiscal stimulus in the U.S. will provide tailwinds for corporate profits. Despite strong prospects and elevated consumer and business optimism, capital expenditures by nonfinancial corporate business remain soft.

 

Financial Accounts - Households: +$2.1 tril

Household wealth grew strongly again in the fourth quarter and continued to support consumer spending. Wealth increased $2.1 trillion to $98.7 trillion, following a downwardly revised $1.6 trillion gain in the third quarter. Year-over-year growth accelerated to 7.8%. Growth in components of wealth tied to the stock market and housing wealth accelerated from the third quarter. Household liability growth increased as well.

 

Consumer Credit (G19):+ $13.9 bil

Headline consumer credit is off to a slow start in 2018. January's gain-$13.9 billion-came in well below the consensus projection of a $17.8 billion build. The nonrevolving segment was responsible for the lion's share of the increase, growing by $13.2 billion. Revolving credit advanced by only about $700 million.

 

MBA Mortgage Applications Survey: +0.3%

Mortgage applications were up modestly last week, and interest rate movements were mixed. The total index was up 0.3% from the prior week. Refinancing rose by 1.5%. Purchases decreased by 0.5%.

 

CoreLogic Home Price Index: +6.6%

The CoreLogic Home Price Index rose 6.6% year over year in January and 0.5% over the previous month. For the first time in 13 years, the index began 2018 at a record high.

 

Oil Inventories: +2.4 mil barrels

An increase in crude oil inventories roughly in line with industry analyst expectations will have little effect on oil prices. Crude oil inventories rose by 2.4 million barrels in the week ended March 2, just ahead of analyst predictions of a 2.2-million barrel build. Gasoline inventories fell by 800,000 barrels, just above analyst expectations of a 500,000-barrel decrease. Distillate inventories fell by 600,000 barrels, roughly in line with analyst predictions of a 684,000-barrel decline. Refinery capacity utilization rose to 88% from 87.8%, close to analyst expectations of a 0.01-percentage point uptick. Total U.S. oil demand was 3.4% higher than a year earlier.

 

Natural Gas Storage Report: -57 bil cubic feet

Natural gas inventories fell by 57 billion cubic feet during the week ended March 2, falling just shy of expectations of a 59 bcf drawdown. Implied flow also fell by 57 bcf. This report is not expected to materially impact natural gas prices.


Source: Economy.com
Opportunity Zones

Created as part of the 2017 tax reform deal, the Opportunity Zones Program is designed to drive long-term capital to distressed communities by providing tax benefits on investments in Opportunity Funds.
 
Governors in each state and U.S. territory (and the Mayor of Washington, D.C.) have until March 21, 2018 to designate a number of Low Income Community census tracts that will be eligible to receive private investment through the Opportunity Zones Program over the next decade.
 
Read more about the Opportunity Zones Program.
 
See who is eligible!
 
 

"Support for a Non-Aggression Pact on Amazon HQ2"

Dr. Richard Florida, author of The Rise of the Creative Class and The New Urban Crisis , did something unusual last week. After conferring with other leading experts on cities, he created a "Support for a Non-Aggression Pact on Amazon HQ2" petition and put it on Change.org

So far over a thousand leading thinkers from across the country have signed the document.

His candid "this is nuts" view on Amazon HQ2 and why he thinks this is a "teachable moment" for the economic development profession.


Guns in America

The mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, has reignited a national conversation about guns in America. A 2017 Pew Research Center report took an in-depth look at Americans' attitudes toward and experiences with guns, including their views on gun violence and gun policies.

The demographics of gun ownership


In This Issue
National Economic Notes:
Guns in America:
Why Our Brains Fall for False Expertise:
Monday Report Archive



Join Our Mailing List

Where do we import our steel from?

 
Country
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
 
Total
Total
Total
Total
 
Quantity
Quantity
Quantity
Quantity
%
2010
2015
2016
2017
2017
WORLD 21,708,178 35,143,597 29,956,616 34,472,507  
CANADA 6,026,020 5,244,973 5,119,209 5,675,815
16%
BRAZIL 902,980 4,829,544 3,959,361 4,665,427
14%
KOREA 1,851,620 4,402,159 3,458,386 3,401,404
10%
MEXICO 2,559,925 2,502,939 2,723,233 3,155,117
9%
RUSSIA 1,247,673 1,922,042 1,870,379 2,866,695
8%
TURKEY 527,563 2,560,647 2,191,546 1,977,865
6%
JAPAN 1,344,720 2,406,688 1,947,919 1,727,843
5%
GERMANY 1,085,563 1,415,879 1,110,099 1,380,433
4%
TAIWAN 486,340 1,091,339 983,245 1,128,356
3%
CHINA 780,995 2,161,101 789,133 740,126
2%
VIETNAM 39,525 201,217 871,153 679,092
2%


Bob Springmeyer
Bonneville Research
40 YEARS - WE DO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
  • Acting with Integrity
  • Serving with Purpose
  • Reaching Forward
Why Our Brains Fall for False Expertise, and How to Stop It

Once we are aware of the shortcuts our minds take when deciding who to listen to, we can take steps to block those shortcuts.

At the beginning of every meeting, a question hangs in the air: Who will be heard? The answer has huge implications not only for decision making, but for the levels of diversity and inclusion throughout the organization. Being heard is a matter of whose ideas get included - and who, therefore, reaps the accompanying career benefits - and whose ideas get left behind.
Yet instead of relying on subject matter experts, people often pay closest attention to the person who talks most frequently, or has the most impressive title, or comes from the CEO's hometown. And that's because of how our brains are built.

The group decision-making process, rather than aligning with actual competence, habitually falls for messy proxies of expertise, a phrase coined by University of Utah management professor Bryan Bonner. Essentially, when our brains are left to their own devices, attention is drawn to shortcuts, such as turning focus to the loudest or tallest person in the room. Over time, letting false expertise run the show can have negative side effects.

"The expert isn't heard, and then the expert leaves," Bonner said in an interview with the NeuroLeadership Institute, where I head the diversity and inclusion practice. "They want to realize their potential. [If] people can't shine when they should be shining, there's a huge human cost."

If the people who offer the most valuable contributions to your organization aren't appropriately recognized for it, they won't stay long. Or, possibly worse, they will stay and stop trying. As my mother was fond of reminding me when I got my first management role: "When people can't contribute, they either quit and leave or they quit and stay."

One of the most important assets a group can have is the expertise of its members. But research indicates that even when everyone within a group recognizes who the subject matter expert is, they defer to that member just 62 percent of the time; when they don't, they listen to the most extroverted person. Another experiment found that "airtime" - the amount of time people spend talking - is a stronger indicator of perceived influence than actual expertise. Our brains also form subtle preferences for people we have met over ones we haven't, and assume people who are good at one thing are also good at other, unrelated things. These biases inevitably end up excluding people and their ideas.

In recruiting, management scholars have found that without systemic evaluation, hiring managers will favor and advocate for candidates who remind them of themselves. This plays out in meetings, too, where diversity goals can be undermined by these messy proxies to the extent that we use proxies that hinder particular groups: Height gives men and people from certain nations (whose populations tend to be taller) an advantage, and loudness disadvantages introverts and people with cultural backgrounds that tend to foster soft-spokenness. This phenomenon applies to both psychological and demographic diversity.
People are not naturally skilled at figuring out who they should be listening to. But by combining organizational and social psychology with neuroscience, we can get a clearer picture of why we're so habitually and mistakenly deferential, and then understand how we can work to prevent that from happening.

How Proxies Play Out in the Brain

The brain uses shortcuts to manage the vast amounts of information that it processes every minute in any given social situation. These shortcuts allow our nonconscious brain to deal with sorting the large volume of data while freeing up capacity in our conscious brain for dealing with whatever cognitive decision making is at hand. This process serves us well in many circumstances, such as having the reflex to, say, duck when someone throws a bottle at our head. But it can be harmful in other circumstances, such as when shortcuts lead us to fall for false expertise.

At a cognitive level, the biases that lead us to believe false expertise are similarity ("People like me are better than people who aren't like me"); experience ("My perceptions of the world must be accurate"); and expedience ("If it feels right, it must be true"). These shortcuts cause us to evaluate people on the basis of proxies - things such as height, extroversion, gender, and other characteristics that don't matter, rather than more meaningful ones.
Although we humans may have biased brains, we also have the capacity to nudge ourselves toward more rational thinking.

The behavioral account of this pattern was first captured by breakthrough research from Daniel Kahneman and the late Amos Tversky, which eventually led to a Nobel Prize in Economic Science for Kahneman, and his bestseller Thinking, Fast and Slow. Their distinction between so-called System 1 thinking, a "hot" form of cognition involving instinct, quick reactions, and automatic responses, and System 2 "cool" thinking, or careful reflection and analysis, is very important here. System 1 thinking can be seen as a sort of autopilot. It's helpful in certain situations involving obvious, straightforward decisions - such as the ducking-the-bottle example. But in more complicated decision-making contexts, it can cause more harm than good - for instance, by allowing the person with the highest rank in the meeting to decide the best way forward, rather than the person with the best idea.

Taking Steps to Combat Your Own Decision-Making Bias

Given the extent to which Western business culture puts a premium on individualism and fast decision making, it's understandable that so many people have been trained to go their own way as quickly and confidently as possible. The good news is that with the right systems in place, people can be trained to approach problem solving in a different, less bias-ridden way.
Although we cannot block a biased assumption of which we are unaware, we can consciously make an effort to direct our attention to the specific information we need to evaluate, and to weigh it consciously. Just about any sort of decision can get hijacked by mental shortcuts, so it's useful to have a few tools to nudge yourself and others toward more reflective, rigorous, and objective thinking.

Set up "if-then" plans. To guide attention back from these proxies of expertise, you can formulate "if-then" plans, which help the anterior cingulate cortex - a brain region that allows us to detect errors and flag conflicting information - find differences between our actual behavior and our preferred behavior. By incorporating this type of bias-mitigation plan before we enter into a situation where we know a decision will be made, we increase our chances of making optimal decisions.

For example, you can say to yourself: " If I catch myself agreeing with everything a dominant, charismatic person is saying in a meeting, then I will privately ask a third person (not the presenter or the loudest person) to repeat the information, shortly after the meeting, to see if I still agree."

Get explicit, and get it in writing. One fairly easy intervention is to instruct employees to get in the habit of laying out, in writing, the precise steps that led to a given decision being made. You also can write out the process for your own decision making.

For example, narratives in the form of "We decided X, which led us to conclude Y, which is why we're going with strategy Z" bring a certain transparency and clarity to the decision-making process and serve as a record that can be referenced later to evaluate which aspects of the process worked and which didn't.

Incentivize awareness. Along those same lines, managers should reward employees who detect flaws in their thinking and correct course. At the NeuroLeadership Institute, we have a "mistake of the month" section in our monthly work-in-progress meetings to help model and celebrate this kind of admission.

To use a sports example, New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady reportedly pays his defense if they can intercept his passes in practice. (It must help. He's one of two players in NFL history to win five Super Bowls.) The takeaway: By making error detection a team sport, you destigmatize the situation, highlight the learning opportunities, and increase the likelihood of making better decisions in the future.

Set up buffers. Taking your decision making from "hot" to "cool" often requires a conscious commitment to create a buffer between when you receive information and when you make a decision on how to move forward.
For example, before a big decision is officially made, everyone involved should be encouraged to spend 10 minutes relaxing or going for a walk before reconvening one last time to discuss any potential issues that haven't yet come up. This is a way of "cooling off" and making sure things have been thought through calmly. Another way to accomplish this is to engage in a "pre-mortem" - imagining a given decision went poorly and then working backward to try to understand why. Doing so can help identify biases that might otherwise go undetected.

Cut the cues. The most common and research-backed approach involves giving hirers access to fewer of the sorts of cues that can trigger expedience biases. Blind selection is a classic example. In the 1970s and 1980s, top orchestras instituted a blind selection process in which the identity of applicants was concealed from the hiring committee, often by literally hiding the player behind a screen while he or she performed. As a result, the number of female musicians in the top five U.S. symphony orchestras rose from 5 percent in 1970 to more than 25 percent in 1996.

Bonner, the Utah psychologist, says to "take the humanity out" when you can. "Set up situations where people exchange information with as little noise as possible," he says. If you're brainstorming, have everyone write down their ideas on index cards or on shared documents, then review the ideas anonymously - that way the strength of the idea, rather than the status of the source, will be the most powerful thing.

Technology can also be leveraged. For example, the "merit-based matching" app Blendoor strips the name, gender, and photos of an applicant from a recruiter's view, and Talent Sonar uses predictive analytics to shape job listings that attract both male and female candidates, and performs a blind resume review, which leads to a 30 percent larger hiring pool, the company says.

Biases are human - a function of our brains - and falling for them doesn't make us malicious. We have the capacity to nudge ourselves toward more rational thinking, to identify and correct the errors we make as a result of bias, and to build institutions that promote good, clear thinking and decision making. With the right systems, tools, and awareness in place, we can better cultivate the best ideas from the most well-suited minds. It just takes a bit of effort, and in the long run pays off in big ways. The best ideas get a chance to be heard - and implemented - and your best thinkers are recognized and keep on thinking.

Khalil Smith heads the diversity and inclusion practice at the NeuroLeadership Institute. He has 20-plus years of experience in leadership, strategy, and HR, including more than 14 years at Apple Inc.


Bonneville Research - Who we are and what we do
 
Bonneville Research is a Utah based team of dedicated professionals who are shameless promoters of quality State and Local Government.  
 
We believe it is the connections between seemingly disparate segments of a community that form the strength and define the fabric of a neighborhood and a region.
  • If you are a private company looking to locate a new or expanded site, we can help with identifying communities and specific properties that match your unique criteria.
  • If you are a private land owner or manager looking to sell or lease your site, we can help with identifying specific businesses whose typical criteria match that of your site or sites.
  • If you are a developer with a proposed project that just doesn't "pencil," we can help identify specific public and private programs that may assist.
  • If you are a public entity looking to retain existing businesses we can help identify businesses at risk and design strategies to keep them in your community at existing or new sites.
  • If you are a public entity looking to attract new business, we can help with identifying available commercial properties that match criteria of those new businesses you have identified.
  • If you are an Economic Development entity, we can help you identify who is looking at your website and help initiate a conversation with potential new clients.
BR Logo