Tuesday, 3 February 2009

Even worse than it looks

America's economy shrank sharply in the fourth quarter. There are few reasons for optimism


Shutterstock

IT IS a measure of the prevailing gloom that the worst economic performance in 26 years could still be described as better than expected. Real gross domestic product fell at an annual rate of 3.8% in the fourth quarter, below the decline of 5% or more that many economists had anticipated.

However, there is precious little reason for optimism. Almost all the unexpected growth came from a small rise in business inventories. This is almost certainly because firms did not reduce production quickly enough to keep pace with slumping orders. To get inventories back in line, more production cuts in the current quarter are likely. Morgan Stanley had expected GDP to fall by 4.5% in the current quarter, but now thinks it will fall by 5.5%.

Other details are no less grim. Consumer spending sank at a 3.5% annual rate, similar to its third-quarter drop, despite a big rise in real after-tax income, thanks to the huge drop in petrol prices. Spending and incomes went in opposite directions because once-profligate consumers are now trying to save more. They put aside 2.9% of their income (after tax) in the fourth quarter, the highest rate since the beginning of 2002. They are doing so either by choice, because retirement savings have been devastated and they fear losing their jobs, or by necessity, because it has become so difficult to borrow.

Businesses are cutting back more savagely. Their investment sank by 19%, worse than any quarter in the 2001 recession which was, after all, a business investment-led slump. And that was despite some firms boosting spending to exploit a temporary tax benefit that expired at the end of the year.

Both exports and imports fell sharply, leaving no net impact on GDP (lower imports raise the calculation of GDP, while lower exports reduce it). Matters are likely to get worse. The dollar has strengthened in recent months and much of the rest of the world is in worse shape than America. According to JPMorgan, the economy in Britain probably shrank at an annual rate of 5.9% in the fourth quarter, the euro-area by 5%, and Japan by a heart-stopping 9%, in a country with no housing bubble or banking crisis.

If there is any silver lining, it is that while the recession was a year old in December, its first half was not especially deep: net GDP actually rose in the first half, and the downturn is actually a bit milder than the median post-war recession after 12 months. But the typical post-war recession was over (or close to it) by this point; this one is getting worse. Claims for unemployment insurance were high in January, sales of new homes slumped in December, and several big companies, most recently Starbucks, Boeing and Sprint Nextel, have announced thousands of job cuts.

Faint though it is, there is a glimmer of hope in financial markets: interest rates on short-term loans between banks and on longer-term corporate debt have fallen notably since the autumn, and there has been a flood of new bond issues. But that may simply be evidence that investors no longer expect a catastrophic wave of bankruptcies. It does not mean that either companies or consumers are about to open their wallets.

What could turn this around? Most recessions end as companies clear excess inventories and as households, with a boost from lower interest rates, release pent-up demand for cars and houses. This time is different. Tightened credit severely limits the ability of consumers and companies to spend even if they were so inclined.

More than usual, an end to this recession will depend on policy. Enormous hopes are riding on Barack Obama’s $819 billion stimulus package, which has passed the House of Representatives and is now being debated in the Senate. Of that sum, just $170 billion will find its way into the economy before this fiscal year ends on September 30th, largely in the form of expanded unemployment insurance benefits and reduced income tax which will make their mark within months. But most of the impact will be next year because infrastructure funds, even once the money is available, takes a long time to be spent as federal, state and local governments secure the necessary approvals and seek bids for the work. “Even ‘shovel ready’ projects will not need shovels for some time,” notes Economics from Washington, a consultancy.

Still, the package will help. The Congressional Budget Office thinks that GDP by the end of 2009 will be between 1.3% and 3.6% higher than it otherwise would have been, thanks to the stimulus. It had thought that the unemployment rate would rise from 7.2% in December to 9% by the end of this year; with the stimulus in place, it thinks it will only rise to between 7.9% and 8.6%.

But more must be done. “The real problem is a feedback loop from the economy to credit losses,” says Richard Berner of Morgan Stanley. The fiscal stimulus will achieve little until that is fixed. Thus the administration’s real work lies ahead: coming up with a bigger and more comprehensive plan for recapitalising banks and relieving them of bad loans.

When you watch these ads, the ads check you out

Watch an advertisement on a video screen in a mall, health club or grocery store and there's a slim — but growing — chance the ad is watching you too.


Small cameras can now be embedded in the screen or hidden around it, tracking who looks at the screen and for how long. The makers of the tracking systems say the software can determine the viewer's gender, approximate age range and, in some cases, ethnicity — and can change the ads accordingly.
That could mean razor ads for men, cosmetics ads for women and video-game ads for teens.

And even if the ads don't shift based on which people are watching, the technology's ability to determine the viewers' demographics is golden for advertisers who want to know how effectively they're reaching their target audience.

While the technology remains in limited use for now, advertising industry analysts say it is finally beginning to live up to its promise. The manufacturers say their systems can accurately determine gender 85 to 90 percent of the time, while accuracy for the other measures continues to be refined.

The concept is reminiscent of the science-fiction movie "Minority Report," in which Tom Cruise's character enters a mall and finds that retinal scanners identify him and prompt personalized ads that greet him by name.

But this technology doesn't go nearly that far. It doesn't identify people individually — it simply categorizes them by outward appearances.

So a video screen might show a motorcycle ad for a group of men, but switch to a minivan ad when women and children join them, said Vicki Rabenou, the chief measurement officer of Tampa, Fla.-based TruMedia Technologies Inc., one of the leaders in developing the technology.

"This is proactive merchandising," Rabenou said. "You're targeting people with smart ads."

Because the tracking industry is still in its infancy, there isn't yet consensus on how to refer to the technology. Some call it face reading, face counting, gaze tracking or, more generally, face-based audience measurement.

Whatever it's called, advertisers are finally ready to try it, said advertising consultant Jack Sullivan, a senior vice president of Starcom USA in Chicago. "I think you're going to see a lot of movement toward it by the end of this year in the top 10 markets," he said.

Because face tracking might feel reminiscent of Big Brother, manufacturers are racing to offer reassurances. When the systems capture an image of who's watching the screen, a computer instantly analyzes it. The systems' manufacturers insist, however, that nothing is ever stored and no identifying information is ever associated with the pictures. That makes the system less intrusive than a surveillance camera that records what it sees, the developers say.

The idea still worries Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil-liberties group in San Francisco. Tien said it's not enough to say some system is "not as bad as some other technology," and argues that cameras that study people contribute to an erosion of privacy.

In general, the tracking systems work like this: A sensor or camera in or near the screen identifies viewers' faces by picking up shapes, colors and the relative speed of movement. The concept is similar to the way consumer cameras now can automatically make sure faces are in focus.

When the ad system pinpoints a face, it compares shapes and patterns to faces that are already identified in a database as male or female. That lets the system predict the person's gender almost immediately.

"The most important features seem to be cheekbones, fullness of lips and the gap between the eyebrows," said Paolo Prandoni, chief scientific officer of Quividi, a French company that is another player in face-tracking technology. Others include Studio IMC Inc. in New York.

The companies say their systems have become adept at determining a viewer's gender, but age is trickier: The software can categorize age only in broad ranges — teens, younger to middle-aged folks and seniors. There's moderate demand for ads based on ethnic information, but the companies acknowledge that determining ethnicity is more challenging than figuring out gender and age range.

Prandoni provided The Associated Press a limited version of Quividi's software, which uses an ordinary webcam to stream video to a computer. The trial version tracked gender only, using color-coded circles to distinguish male and female faces.

The sample size was too small to be statistically significant, but it was accurate about 80 to 90 percent of the time.

That might be as precise as the systems ever get, said Deborah Mitchell, a professor of consumer psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Even the human brain can't always determine gender, age or ethnicity.

Still, "even if it gets to 70 percent accuracy, that's still giving you a wealth of information," said Mitchell, who teaches in the Wisconsin School of Business.

That information is certainly valuable to Bill Ketcham, the chief marketing officer of Adspace Networks Inc. His New York company sells video advertising on 1,400 video screens at 105 malls around the nation.

Adspace is testing six TruMedia systems at malls in Winston-Salem, N.C., Pittsburgh and St. Louis. The kiosks display a daily list of top 10 sales at the mall, as well as paid advertising that comes largely from movie studios and TV networks.

A 15-second video ad that replays across Adspace's national network can cost as much as $765,000 per month. So advertisers expect rigorous information about who sees the spots — information that face tracking can now provide, Ketcham said.

For now, at least, Adspace isn't changing the ads based on who's watching — Ketcham said the kiosks' audiences are so large that it wouldn't be practical to personalize ads to individuals.

While advertisers like the face-tracking technology, another privacy advocate, Harley Geiger, questions whether it should be used on consumers without their knowledge. Geiger, staff counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology in Washington, D.C., said advertisers should be telling consumers what details about them are being collected and for what purpose.

"With the technology proliferating, now or the short-term is the time to consider privacy protections," he said. "If you don't build it in at an early stage it becomes very difficult to build it into an already established system."

NY Times: Business Owners Hiring Mercenaries as Police Budgets Cut

In Oakland, Private Force May Be Hired for Security In a basement office that serves as a police headquarters and community center, Oakland ...