by Gary Alexander

May 25, 2021

To pass three multi-trillion-dollar rescue packages, you’ve got to have an economy in crisis, so the top-level Biden economists who drink the (presumably potable) Potomac water have to invent (or create) negative statistics where few exist. When you don’t have any obvious “crisis” to exploit, they invent one.

While I spent the last three weeks here mired in deep rice paddies of the big picture of “who will win the 21st Century – China or the United States?” the two closest economic advisors to President Joe Biden were assuring us that three separate $2 trillion “rescue” packages were necessary to “save the economy.”

Executive Orders and Big Spenders Charts

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

Let’s turn to the comments of two leading economists in early May:

First, on Sunday May 2, Cecilia Rouse, Chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, appeared in a 12-minute segment with host Chris Wallace on “Fox Sunday Morning.” Wallace opened the grilling session with a chart his team created of three responses to historical economic crises in the first 100 days.

Adjusted for inflation, he said, FDR’s “New Deal” in 1933 cost $856 billion; President Obama’s 2009 response to the 2008-09 “Greater Recession” cost $1.8 trillion, and Joe Biden’s plans cost $6.0 trillion.

Three Democratic Presidents and Their Responses to Three Crises
President Year Crisis Response Cost (adjusted for inflation)
  Franklin Roosevelt  1933   Great Depression   New Deal Programs   $856 Billion
  Barack Obama  2009   2008-09 Recession   Great Recession Recovery   $1.8 Trillion
  Joe Biden  2021   Covid Recession   Biden’s First 100 Days   $6.0 Trillion
  Source: “Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace,” May 2, 2021

After showing this data on the screen, Chris Wallace’s asked the President’s leading economist to explain.

Chris Wallace: Ms. Rouse, do you really need to spend seven times as much as what was spent to get us out of the Great Depression in the 1930s?

Cecilia Rouse: Let’s be clear. The first part of what President Biden was spending was part of The American Rescue Plan. We’re in an economic recession caused by a pandemic…

“WHOA” I said, at that point. “We are in an economic recession”? This hearkens back to the Clinton era, when he asked what the meaning of “is” is. A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, as measured by the Gross Domestic Product, so the last recession came early 2020 and ended a YEAR ago,

Quarter GDP Growth (annualized)
  1Q’2020   -5.0%
  2Q’20   -31.4%
  3Q’20   +33.4%
  4Q’20   +4.3%
  1Q’21   +6.4%
  Source: BEA, Statista

Are we in a recession? No. It ended exactly a year ago, in May 2020. June was gangbusters. The current quarter looks like double-digit (10.1%) growth, according to the Atlanta FED GDP Now model, so Ms. Rouse seems to be bending the facts to defend the President’s over-spending plans for political reasons.

Robust Growth Indicators Charts

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

Janet Yellen Delivers More Opinions than Facts on Jobs

Since gaining unanimous acceptance to her post at Treasury, Janet Yellen has also been a good team player. After the lame jobs report came out on Friday, May 7, Secretary Yellen joined Jen Psaki at the press conference podium covering the release. Here, she explains why extra benefits for not working had nothing to do with the fact that only 266,000 returned to work in April rather than the expected 1,000,000.

Yellen: “Let me be clear: 266,000 jobs added in April represent continued progress. We saw promising growth of 331,000 jobs in leisure and hospitality, which includes the restaurants and bars that have been so badly battered by this pandemic. The labor market is volatile from month to month, and I think the best thing is to average through and say we’ve been creating over 500,000 jobs a month, on average….”

“It’s a challenge for parents to manage schedules where one child is in school a couple of days a week and another child is in school some different days during the week. So caregiving responsibilities and absence of childcare are still important reasons why people are unable to return to work. You know, concern about the pandemic and the health consequences, I think, remains a factor for many. I don’t think that the addition to unemployment compensation is really the factor that’s making a difference.*

“There’s no question that we’re hearing from businesses that they are having difficulty hiring workers, but when we look across states or across sectors or across workers – if it were really the extra benefits that were holding back hiring in states or for workers or in sectors where the replacement rate due to UI is very high, you’d expect to see lower job-finding rates. And in fact, what you see is the exact opposite. **

“We’ve just seen motor vehicle production shut down in some places because of a shortage of semiconductors. There was a loss of jobs there this month. There were setbacks in the lumber industry because of shortages there. So, you know, starting up an economy again, trying to get it back on track after a pandemic in which there are a lot of supply bottlenecks is going to be, I think,* a bumpy process. But I really don’t think* the major factor is the extra unemployment.”

*Yellen cites some facts to support her case, but when it comes to unemployment checks, she says “I think…” Instead, all she needs to do is ask workers and employers, who could tell her the truth
** Yellen cites data about the states, but that data turned out later in May to be demonstrably false.

Secretary Yellen (and others in the Biden administration) keep saying that there is no “measurable” evidence that the extended unemployment bonus is discouraging unemployed people from seeking work. Well, let’s test that. Governor Greg Gianforte of Montana said Montana would forgo the $300 a week bonus – before the May 7 downbeat jobs survey was released. The governors of many other states have followed his example, reasoning, “Why not pay a bounty for getting and holding a job rather than paying for not having one.” Businesses in these states are grateful to have workers come back. So are customers.

According to an article in The New York Times that is cleverly mistitled to appeal to their core bias (“The Myth of Labor Shortages,” May 20, 2021), some companies have responded to the labor shortage – which the Times blames on low wages – by imitating Congress and throwing out “helicopter money.” The Bank of America, for instance, said it would raise its minimum wage to $25/hour and insist that its contractors pay at least $15 an hour. The Times cited several other companies that raised wages dramatically to lure new workers. However, that only underlines their handicap in competing with lofty government benefits.

Job Hires versus Job Openings Charts

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

Over eight million jobs are still going begging. On May 11, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) for March. It showed a record 8.1 million job openings, an increase of 600,000 openings in March, after new hires picked up by just 200,000 – strong evidence that the $300-a-week in additional unemployment benefits is discouraging people from returning to work.

The river running through DC isn’t the Potomac – it sounds more like that river in Egypt – Denial.

All content above represents the opinion of Gary Alexander of Navellier & Associates, Inc.

Please see important disclosures below.

Also In This Issue

A Look Ahead by Louis Navellier
Chances for Yellen’s “World Corporate Tax” Diminish

Income Mail by Bryan Perry
The Search for Green Energy-Related Income

Growth Mail by Gary Alexander
Some D.C. Economists are in Denial

Global Mail by Ivan Martchev
Sun Tzu Strikes Again, Blockchain-Style

Sector Spotlight by Jason Bodner
He Profits Most Who Learns How to Wisely Wait

View Full Archive
Read Past Issues Here

About The Author

Gary Alexander
SENIOR EDITOR

Gary Alexander has been Senior Writer at Navellier since 2009.  He edits Navellier’s weekly Marketmail and writes a weekly Growth Mail column, in which he uses market history to support the case for growth stocks.  For the previous 20 years before joining Navellier, he was Senior Executive Editor at InvestorPlace Media (formerly Phillips Publishing), where he worked with several leading investment analysts, including Louis Navellier (since 1997), helping launch Louis Navellier’s Blue Chip Growth and Global Growth newsletters.

Prior to that, Gary edited Wealth Magazine and Gold Newsletter and wrote various investment research reports for Jefferson Financial in New Orleans in the 1980s.  He began his financial newsletter career with KCI Communications in 1980, where he served as consulting editor for Personal Finance newsletter while serving as general manager of KCI’s Alexandria House book division.  Before that, he covered the economics beat for news magazines. All content of “Growth Mail” represents the opinion of Gary Alexander

Important Disclosures:

Although information in these reports has been obtained from and is based upon sources that Navellier believes to be reliable, Navellier does not guarantee its accuracy and it may be incomplete or condensed. All opinions and estimates constitute Navellier’s judgment as of the date the report was created and are subject to change without notice. These reports are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation for the purchase or sale of a security. Any decision to purchase securities mentioned in these reports must take into account existing public information on such securities or any registered prospectus.To the extent permitted by law, neither Navellier & Associates, Inc., nor any of its affiliates, agents, or service providers assumes any liability or responsibility nor owes any duty of care for any consequences of any person acting or refraining to act in reliance on the information contained in this communication or for any decision based on it.

Past performance is no indication of future results. Investment in securities involves significant risk and has the potential for partial or complete loss of funds invested. It should not be assumed that any securities recommendations made by Navellier. in the future will be profitable or equal the performance of securities made in this report. Dividend payments are not guaranteed. The amount of a dividend payment, if any, can vary over time and issuers may reduce dividends paid on securities in the event of a recession or adverse event affecting a specific industry or issuer.

None of the stock information, data, and company information presented herein constitutes a recommendation by Navellier or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. Any specific securities identified and described do not represent all of the securities purchased, sold, or recommended for advisory clients. The holdings identified do not represent all of the securities purchased, sold, or recommended for advisory clients and the reader should not assume that investments in the securities identified and discussed were or will be profitable.

Information presented is general information that does not take into account your individual circumstances, financial situation, or needs, nor does it present a personalized recommendation to you. Individual stocks presented may not be suitable for every investor. Investment in securities involves significant risk and has the potential for partial or complete loss of funds invested. Investment in fixed income securities has the potential for the investment return and principal value of an investment to fluctuate so that an investor’s holdings, when redeemed, may be worth less than their original cost.

One cannot invest directly in an index. Index is unmanaged and index performance does not reflect deduction of fees, expenses, or taxes. Presentation of Index data does not reflect a belief by Navellier that any stock index constitutes an investment alternative to any Navellier equity strategy or is necessarily comparable to such strategies. Among the most important differences between the Indices and Navellier strategies are that the Navellier equity strategies may (1) incur material management fees, (2) concentrate its investments in relatively few stocks, industries, or sectors, (3) have significantly greater trading activity and related costs, and (4) be significantly more or less volatile than the Indices.

ETF Risk: We may invest in exchange traded funds (“ETFs”) and some of our investment strategies are generally fully invested in ETFs. Like traditional mutual funds, ETFs charge asset-based fees, but they generally do not charge initial sales charges or redemption fees and investors typically pay only customary brokerage fees to buy and sell ETF shares. The fees and costs charged by ETFs held in client accounts will not be deducted from the compensation the client pays Navellier. ETF prices can fluctuate up or down, and a client account could lose money investing in an ETF if the prices of the securities owned by the ETF go down. ETFs are subject to additional risks:

  • ETF shares may trade above or below their net asset value;
  • An active trading market for an ETF’s shares may not develop or be maintained;
  • The value of an ETF may be more volatile than the underlying portfolio of securities the ETF is designed to track;
  • The cost of owning shares of the ETF may exceed those a client would incur by directly investing in the underlying securities; and
  • Trading of an ETF’s shares may be halted if the listing exchange’s officials deem it appropriate, the shares are delisted from the exchange, or the activation of market-wide “circuit breakers” (which are tied to large decreases in stock prices) halts stock trading generally.

Grader Disclosures: Investment in equity strategies involves substantial risk and has the potential for partial or complete loss of funds invested. The sample portfolio and any accompanying charts are for informational purposes only and are not to be construed as a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument and should not be relied upon as the sole factor in an investment making decision. As a matter of normal and important disclosures to you, as a potential investor, please consider the following: The performance presented is not based on any actual securities trading, portfolio, or accounts, and the reported performance of the A, B, C, D, and F portfolios (collectively the “model portfolios”) should be considered mere “paper” or pro forma performance results based on Navellier’s research.

Investors evaluating any of Navellier & Associates, Inc.’s, (or its affiliates’) Investment Products must not use any information presented here, including the performance figures of the model portfolios, in their evaluation of any Navellier Investment Products. Navellier Investment Products include the firm’s mutual funds and managed accounts. The model portfolios, charts, and other information presented do not represent actual funded trades and are not actual funded portfolios. There are material differences between Navellier Investment Products’ portfolios and the model portfolios, research, and performance figures presented here. The model portfolios and the research results (1) may contain stocks or ETFs that are illiquid and difficult to trade; (2) may contain stock or ETF holdings materially different from actual funded Navellier Investment Product portfolios; (3) include the reinvestment of all dividends and other earnings, estimated trading costs, commissions, or management fees; and, (4) may not reflect prices obtained in an actual funded Navellier Investment Product portfolio. For these and other reasons, the reported performances of model portfolios do not reflect the performance results of Navellier’s actually funded and traded Investment Products. In most cases, Navellier’s Investment Products have materially lower performance results than the performances of the model portfolios presented.

This report contains statements that are, or may be considered to be, forward-looking statements. All statements that are not historical facts, including statements about our beliefs or expectations, are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of The U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements may be identified by such forward-looking terminology as “expect,” “estimate,” “plan,” “intend,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “continue,” “project,” or similar statements or variations of such terms. Our forward-looking statements are based on a series of expectations, assumptions, and projections, are not guarantees of future results or performance, and involve substantial risks and uncertainty as described in Form ADV Part 2A of our filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which is available at www.adviserinfo.sec.gov or by requesting a copy by emailing info@navellier.com. All of our forward-looking statements are as of the date of this report only. We can give no assurance that such expectations or forward-looking statements will prove to be correct. Actual results may differ materially. You are urged to carefully consider all such factors.

FEDERAL TAX ADVICE DISCLAIMER: As required by U.S. Treasury Regulations, you are informed that, to the extent this presentation includes any federal tax advice, the presentation is not written by Navellier to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. Navellier does not advise on any income tax requirements or issues. Use of any information presented by Navellier is for general information only and does not represent tax advice either express or implied. You are encouraged to seek professional tax advice for income tax questions and assistance.

IMPORTANT NEWSLETTER DISCLOSURE:The hypothetical performance results for investment newsletters that are authored or edited by Louis Navellier, including Louis Navellier’s Growth Investor, Louis Navellier’s Breakthrough Stocks, Louis Navellier’s Accelerated Profits, and Louis Navellier’s Platinum Club, are not based on any actual securities trading, portfolio, or accounts, and the newsletters’ reported hypothetical performances should be considered mere “paper” or proforma hypothetical performance results and are not actual performance of real world trades.  Navellier & Associates, Inc. does not have any relation to or affiliation with the owner of these newsletters. There are material differences between Navellier Investment Products’ portfolios and the InvestorPlace Media, LLC newsletter portfolios authored by Louis Navellier. The InvestorPlace Media, LLC newsletters contain hypothetical performance that do not include transaction costs, advisory fees, or other fees a client might incur if actual investments and trades were being made by an investor. As a result, newsletter performance should not be used to evaluate Navellier Investment services which are separate and different from the newsletters. The owner of the newsletters is InvestorPlace Media, LLC and any questions concerning the newsletters, including any newsletter advertising or hypothetical Newsletter performance claims, (which are calculated solely by Investor Place Media and not Navellier) should be referred to InvestorPlace Media, LLC at (800) 718-8289.

Please note that Navellier & Associates and the Navellier Private Client Group are managed completely independent of the newsletters owned and published by InvestorPlace Media, LLC and written and edited by Louis Navellier, and investment performance of the newsletters should in no way be considered indicative of potential future investment performance for any Navellier & Associates separately managed account portfolio. Potential investors should consult with their financial advisor before investing in any Navellier Investment Product.

Navellier claims compliance with Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS). To receive a complete list and descriptions of Navellier’s composites and/or a presentation that adheres to the GIPS standards, please contact Navellier or click here. It should not be assumed that any securities recommendations made by Navellier & Associates, Inc. in the future will be profitable or equal the performance of securities made in this report.

FactSet Disclosure: Navellier does not independently calculate the statistical information included in the attached report. The calculation and the information are provided by FactSet, a company not related to Navellier. Although information contained in the report has been obtained from FactSet and is based on sources Navellier believes to be reliable, Navellier does not guarantee its accuracy, and it may be incomplete or condensed. The report and the related FactSet sourced information are provided on an “as is” basis. The user assumes the entire risk of any use made of this information. Investors should consider the report as only a single factor in making their investment decision. The report is for informational purposes only and is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of a security. FactSet sourced information is the exclusive property of FactSet. Without prior written permission of FactSet, this information may not be reproduced, disseminated or used to create any financial products. All indices are unmanaged and performance of the indices include reinvestment of dividends and interest income, unless otherwise noted, are not illustrative of any particular investment and an investment cannot be made in any index. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.