Here's my summary of the key events overnight that affect New Zealand, with news the American economy is losing the mojo it had over the past two years or so.
In the US tomorrow, all eyes will be on their unemployment rate and the change in non-farm payrolls. The signs are not good for a positive outcome. Today we got the ADP precursor report and in May, that grew by +230,000. Analysts were expecting a more modest +188,000 growth. But the actual June growth was just +156,000. This under-shoot has markets worried for tomorrow's non-farm payrolls report where a quite weak +178,000 gain is now expected. Business enthusiasm seems to be evaporating from the American economy. Also, there are hints that the trend of unemployment claims are rising again.
And in a worrying development, the head of the US government ethics office has resigned, unable to deal with the subversion of ethics by the new Administration.
In Europe, the release of the ECB's minutes has seen yields rise. The central bank is now discussing when to end QE, and seems to have resolved that extra stimulus measures are not warranted now. Markets are taking this as a turning point and that the next moves will be to follow the US Fed and withdraw some stimulus, even raise rates. They will both be following Japan. All this is happening even though they don't understand why inflation has vanished.
France is joining a growing movement to force the extinction of vehicles that run on fossil fuels, saying that it would aim to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2040. And this will benefit some Aussie lithium miners to move into the big time.
Yesterday we reported on surging aircargo traffic. Today we got the passenger numbers and they are more modest, relatively at least. Passenger traffic is up 'only' +7.7% in May from the same month a year ago. That is down from the +10.8% growth is April. The Asia/Pacific region is still growing fast however, with the May gain at +11.8%. China's domestic markets grew +16.8% while India's grew +17.7%.
In Australia, major bank NAB has a new aggressive policy to reject any lending on an interest-only basis for high LVR situations, a move aimed squarely at investors. It is the most direct approach in this area by any bank there.
In New York, the UST 10yr yield has risen sharply again to 2.37% after the EBC minutes release.
The price of oil is broadly stable today at just over US$45 a barrel, while the Brent benchmark is now just under US$48.
And the price of gold is up US$2 to US$1,222/oz.
The Kiwi dollar is basically unchanged at 72.7 USc. On the cross rates we are holding at 95.9 AU¢, and at lower against a surging euro at 63.7 euro cents. The TWI-5 index is now at 76.7.
If you want to catch up with all the changes yesterday, we have an update here.
The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
63 Comments
The ECB will have no choice but to continue with what they are doing. They are still treating the symptoms rather than the causes of all their issues.
They haven't sorted Greece
They haven't sorted Spain
They haven't sorted Italy
They haven't sorted Portugal
They are still losing Britain, and
They haven't stopped (or even reduced) the flow of Migrants
You do know what the ECB does, right?
Because it doesn't sound like it - the ECB is the European Central Bank. Responsible for monetary policy of the Euro currency.
Sure, they can buy government securities in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy, but at the end of the day that's about all they can do given a common market/currency union.
Britain - I don't see how the ECB has any control over them, given they maintain their own currency.
Migrants - How is a central bank responsible for immigration policy?
In New York, the UST 10yr yield has risen sharply again to 2.37% after the EBC minutes release.
Hmmmm............
After the 2013 “reflation” selloff, it took just about two years for the treasury market to revisit (10s) the 2013 lows (rates). In all that time, each and every bond selloff was met by the same assurances that “rates had nowhere to go but up” when instead the underlying fundamentals (economy as well as money/liquidity) were the same throughout. “Rate hikes” and even balance sheet normalization are supposed to matter this time. But QE taper and then its final end was believed highly relevant, too. Maybe instead it doesn’t matter what the Fed does. Sure didn’t in 2008, so why would it in 2014, 2017, or any time hereafter? View graphic detail
In Toronto , sales transactions down 37 percent y/y. Detached home sales down 45 percent y/y. Average detached home price down 230K since April.Listings up 16 percent y/y. Average Toronto price now 793000, down from April average of $920K. TREB (Toronto real estate board ) reports a 6 percent y/y rise. You can use numbers and swing them multiple ways for so long.
Would be interested to see if other banks follow NAB in blanket derisking low equity lending and if this gets applied to NZ subsidiaries. Often when one bank makes a move others are forced to follow because they end up taking on a the risk being shed by other banks.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the Fed, now data-independent, has just one mandate: keep hiking interest rates until markets break.
That is the conclusion of Citi's Jeremy Hale, who writes that the FOMC minutes pointed to a view that financial conditions had eased despite the previous Fed hikes because equities had rallied and corporate bond yields declined. Specifically, the minutes note that: "equity prices were high when judged against standard valuation measures." As a result, the Citi cross-asset strategist believes that "Central Banks are buying in to the BIS thesis that they need to control not just price, but asset price, inflation. In other words, markets may be inflated by easy money."
In yet other words, those fringe financial blogs you've been reading for years were right all along. And, Citi adds, "it also means we might expect Central Banks to remain biased towards tightening until/ unless asset markets turn lower." Slowly markets are starting to get the message.
What happens then? Read more
Some further perspectives on the lithium market
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=ORE&E=ASX&N=1017442
Note
1 I think that saline extraction is significantly more cost competitive than the hard rock operations.
2 Refining techniques appear to be somewhat immature so future projections have been significantly over optimistic
I cant help wondering if electricity storage (ESS) will be a larger market than is assumed, as it will be a crucial adjunct to solar and wind power as they become a more significant proportion of the power generation systems.
What is up with the push for electric vehicles, it makes absolutely no sense (from a global warming perspective) when fossil fuels are used to generate electricity. I'm deeply concerned for our environment and our fellow species but this is fully arse about face. Even in NZ with our very high levels of renewable electricity if you charged your car in the evening after work it will be using electricity from one of our FF powered peaking plants. The efficiency factor is then only 20% of using the FF directly in the car - five times the emissions in other words. For a place like Australia with almost 90% of their electricity from FF the change to electric vehicles would lead to a massive increase in emissions. Can't people think straight anymore?
Your comment just says "Yes it does" then lists other ways in which it can be generated. Add to that hydro, geothermal, nuclear (something that should really be used more) and hot air generated by politicians. We have an especial overabundance of that last one, for sure.
That's right, so look at the lead in time, and amount of resources required to convert all current generation to renewable.
Now look where are lot of those newly required resources are coming from and how they will be produced.
For the next however many decades we will effectively be using double the FF to create all the new generation infrastructure.
The biggest question is do we even have enough current resources to do it?
What's the alternative? The whole point in non-renewable energy is it's not renewable...we'll need to make the switch at some point if we want to keep the lights on, why not do it now before we get close to running out of supply?
So, do we try to work towards a sustainable future now or burn our resources on living today and screw later generations?
"Even in NZ with our very high levels of renewable electricity if you charged your car in the evening after work it will be using electricity from one of our FF powered peaking plants. The efficiency factor is then only 20% of using the FF directly in the car"
How do you figure that?
Our GTs (with exception of Huntly) aren't baseload, they're mainly only peakers. So as long as you charge your electric vehicle at low demand times, we would have ample energy reserves with a simple demand re optimisation. The energy stored within the cars could also be used to further smooth the demand cycle.
Also, the thermal efficency of GTs is greater than 20% - I think CCGTs get up to around 45% - and they burn a cleaner fuel.
My point exactly - any additional electricity load at or near peak demand (in NZ, evenings after work for example) will be met with FF powered peaking plants. While these are more efficient at converting energy (35%) than the internal combustion engine (20%+) there are big losses from electricity transmission losses and battery efficiency. The use of gas directly in the vehicle is best of all for that reason. The point really is that we are putting the use side ahead of the generating issue. Until vehicles are charged by renewables, electric power for transport makes the situation worse not better. I will try and find the links to original research I read.
If that's a problem for the power companies then all that needs to happen is offer cheaper night rates and provide customers with a timer. Most punters will get home, plug in, set the timer to 10pm and go about their business.
Much like my current smart phone - I plug it in overnight, so I use cheaper power while I'm not using it.
Haha. You think a rational consumer is going to say, "Yes I'll charge my car now @ $0.4 per kWh, instead of charging it later @ $0.25 per kWh.
Perhaps they'll plug it in and buffer power back to their household, but they won't draw from the grid.
Anyway, as the demand cycle flattens, it shouldn't matter.
Also, with the wonder of technology we can dynamically assign the charging requirement. It's not a case of "it's plugged in, it's charging".
First of all you are assuming consumers do that now. Power generation and usage stats would suggest they do not.
Even if some do, Have you ever witnessed the panic when someone's phone runs flat? Like a phone, a car is a different beast. People will happily delay the washing machine, dishwasher, and night store heater. They will not delay charging their car.
You wouldn't leave your Petrol powered car sitting in the garage with the fuel light on because fuel will be 6c off tomorrow. You get fuel now in case you need it, granted you might not fill it up as much.
People will charge when they want to, because when needed the car must work.
The only way to reduce the peak usage problem will be battery technology. They will need to remain drive-able across a week or so, so that at least every car is not being charged every day.
The vast majority of people have pretty routine lives which don't included driving close to an electric car's range each day, or unscheduled journeys in the middle of the night.
Charging the car overnight would take very little effort. Of course, some people will need to charge at peak times, but the vast majority will not. Car batteries will take more to charge than a phone, so there is more incentive to schedule.
Do you really think this is an insurmountable problem?
"The vast majority of people have pretty routine lives which don't included driving close to an electric car's range each day, or unscheduled journeys in the middle of the night."
You are right, and it is not an insurmountable problem over time.
But it will be a very big issue over the next 10-20 years. Most of it due to habit. People "fill" their car up now, they don't use it all in one day, or night. Some may take a week, some a fortnight, some a month or more. But they know it is full and they can use it should they need to.
". Car batteries will take more to charge than a phone, so there is more incentive to schedule."
I would be interested to know how the batteries will fair sitting at idle though in Peak Auckland traffic for a few hours a day, and how long they will maintain a solid percentage of a charge. Also how long will the charge last, if the car is say garaged for a week with no use?
A new I-phone straight out the box will last 12+ hours of full use easy. But after a year of sustained use, 4 hours is considered good. What will it be like for an electric car? Will the batteries require more charge to do less? or will you need new batteries more often?
As I said, it is battery life that will be the Electric Cars biggest obstacle.
Habits change pretty fast. On-demand TV was pretty niche a few years ago, now half the people I know don't even have TV connections. Ditto mobile phones vs landlines. I know a few people with e-bikes or electric cars and they know it's a different beast and deal with it accordingly.
From my limited research, it looks like stop-go traffic works pretty well with EVs, not sure about being left in the garage. With a timer, you can always set it to top up every night if you really want to.
http://www.popsci.com/why-you-shouldnt-fear-electric-car
As for range, car batteries are rather better than phone batteries. For example:
http://www.plugincars.com/tesla-roadster-battery-life-study-85-percent-…
85% of 300km range still possible after 100,000 miles, would cover the vast majority of journeys and if you're travelling further than that it's not too hard to imaging a 30 minute break for a charge and some food somewhere along the route.
"You wouldn't leave your Petrol powered car sitting in the garage with the fuel light on because fuel will be 6c off tomorrow. You get fuel now in case you need it, granted you might not fill it up as much."
True.
But you assume the tank is always empty, which isn't the default case.
I remember when Transpower presented their new demand model to us a couple of years ago, integrating electric vehicles/battery technology, it was pretty much the opposite of what you think will happen.
They had predicted significant demand smoothing with technology shifting all non essential power consumption to arbitrage lower marginal kWh rates.
I have also been involved with demand modelling and to be honest I don't put much stock in it.
We really have no idea what will happen. The peak use time each seems to be lengthening, it is highly probably we will have new far higher base load throughout a 24 hour period. Even the historic winter/summer patterns are less distinct now that people have Heat pumps allowing them to use AC in summer.
As you have mentioned, price is a driver. A large up front investment (infrastructure) is always scrutinized far more heavily than a small differential in rates (kwh for charging) over the life of a product.
To make it really work, it will need to get to a price where the current generators see benefit in switching.
In NZ we are well placed with Hydro base load, and Geothermal starting to see big inroads. But everyone should remember how controversial much of that was when first commissioned.
The rest of the world, well that will be interesting.
I look at Perth, where I have a bit of experience in the Electricity industry. WA is a solar dream and is also well optimised for wind. But renewable's make up less than 10% of generation. Solar generation is quite common residentially, but storage/batteries less so. The payback just doesn't seem to justify it.
Yes and no. Power generation plants are far more efficient at converting FF to power. Standard power stations are about 35-39% efficient and combined cycle plants 50-60% . Petrol cars typically achieve 20%, so it seems there could be scope for meaningful savings. Remember also that having a battery in the vehicle enables braking energy to be stored rather than wasted as per the hybrid vehicles that achieve significant fuel savings.
World wide there has been a significant move to use gas in fossil fuelled power generation. This produces less green house gas. Cars generally are not set up to run on gas, so even if we were to stick with FF this is a better way to go.
You also need to look at the whole energy/transport system more broadly. In future we will hopefully have most of our power generated by solar and other renewables. When that occurs, obviously battery powered cars will be the best solution. It makes sense to be developing the battery cars now rather than waiting until we have fully renewable generation. Also with intelligent control of the power network charging car batteries could be used to store surplus renewable energy and allow the whole system to better match the somewhat unpredictable power generation of renewables. This will help deal with the system instability challenges that remewables cause.
"In future we will hopefully have most of our power generated by solar and other renewables. "
Can the power from one solar panel be used to make one Solar panel?
No.
Do we want lots more wind turbines? Looks like maybe not
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-c…
There is no such thing as renewable energy.
A seriously illogical statement (by the way)
I suggest you do some research. Start here
http://energyskeptic.com/tag/cubic-mile-of-oil/
Looked at a study in the US, where EVs can be subsidized.
Looks like net CO2 emissions can be positive or negative depending whether coal, lignite or gas is used to generate the electricity.
EVs are far from the no-brainer that everybody seems to think, but it is surprising that it can be slightly better in some circumstances to burn fossil fuels to make the electricity, and suffer all the generation, charging and transmission inefficiencies, and still end up with a little less CO2
Obviously EVs can get the toxic particles and fumes out of the major cities and out into the countyside, so some health benefits could accrue.
But dramatic drops in net CO2 emissions are not realistic.
We are with Flick Electric so are paying the marginal price for electricity. We only plug in when the price is low and there is little coal & diesel generation. It is only in the last few weeks that there has been significant fossil fuel generation and then only around breakfast and dinner-time.
An electric motor is vastly more efficient than a internal combustion engine, plus there are the advantages of regenerative braking. The losses are in getting the electricity from the power station to the battery. On the other hand, significant CO2 is emitted in refining the oil and transporting it from the oil well to the car's petrol/diesel tank.
To David Chaston ....On the score of Lithium demand and the growing number of electric cars , I wonder what the effect will be over the next decade on the demand for electricity .
I read an article by Patrick Martin for Bloombergs who suggests the demand for electricity could send demand up by 300 fold in the US in the next few decades .
Thats a really big number , we will need to open a whole number of new power plants in NZ if demand just doubled here .
Energy shares on the NZX may be a big play as a long term hold
And what we we use to generate the power ?
Nuclear is out ( for now ) we may not have enough rivers for hydro to meet demand
And most importantly , is the Government even aware of this ?
And if they are , then whats the plan ?
There is no plan to go electric.
People forget that it is a transition that would involve
- higher costs (someone has to pay for all the infrastructure & write off all the obsolete infrastructure)
- lower efficiencies (you are replacing one system = fossil fuels with two; fossil plus lower energy dense battery...)
A financial system indebted to the eyeballs & struggling to get any growth under the current system simply cant handle this "backwards" step.
ham n eggs,
"There is no plan to go electric". Which cave are you hibernating in? Go and read the reports from RethinkX or the Boston Consulting Group. Here's a quote from the Road transport Forum; "The benefits of pure electric vehicles(EVs) are compelling and concerns about cost,weight and restricted range are being quickly allayed."
You might also want to look at where the big car companies are investing heavily-not just Tesla,but GM,Daimler Benz, Volvo,etc. Big money is being invested in mega battery factories. In California,more than 1 in 30 vehicles sold last year were either EVs or Hybrids.
I can imagine you t the start of the Industrial Revolution telling anyone who would listen that the steam engine wouldn't work,railways were a waste of time,electricity was the work of the devil and so on. Sleep on.
Im in the cave that doesnt get the fake news bulletin.
Youre completely ignoring the STEP DOWN in energy efficiency here. The industrial revolution was a STEP UP.
Again - the financial system DOESNT LIKE steps down. But the big companies do like subsidies.
Go back to school.
https://www.designnews.com/automotive-0/electric-car-s-same-old-problem…
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/gm-s-ready-to-lose-9…
"General Motors Co. stands to lose as much as $9,000 on every Chevrolet Bolt that leaves a showroom .. Sounds crazy, but the damage makes perfect business sense .. California crafted the doctrine, with tough clean-air rules... roughly one in eight new vehicles was registered there in the first half of the year -- that companies will keep spitting out electrics for the privilege of selling everything else in their lineups."
Electricity certainly does not need to be generated by FF in a country such as ours, we have a vast array of rivers suitable for Hydro Electric use,there utilisation hamstrung by red tape and well intentioned do gooders along with the business model that requires low excess capacity to bolster prices. When to charge the car to save a miniscule per kWh amount goes out the door with excess capacity and hey all the houses that the govt is subsidising to insulate, people could then afford to actually heat them.
Exactly, renewable and Green, seem to be two different things these days.
Wind is bad as it takes huge swathes of land and creates all sorts of noise and turbulence patterns.
Hydro is bad as somewhere has to get flooded
Solar is bad due to the materials required and the fact it only ever works for a small part of each day.
Nuclear, well lets just swap gradual global warming, for gradual global stockpiling of devastatingly toxic materials.
Tidal impacts marine life
Geothermal is one of the few green and renewable energies, but they require vast amounts of FF to produce and maintain the original infrastructure.
"In Europe, the release of the ECB's minutes has seen yields rise. The central bank is now discussing when to end QE, and seems to have resolved that extra stimulus measures are not warranted now. Markets are taking this as a turning point and that the next moves will be to follow the US Fed and withdraw some stimulus, even raise rates"
GOOD LUCK !!! I give it very max 2 years until both the US and the EU need to backpedal, real hard.
Your view Stephen Hulme ?
Sorry I haven't kept up with the discussion. For those still following it here is the research that prompted my original comment.
"Applying this brilliant engineering to the problem yields this result: A natural gas electric generating turbine gets 40% efficiency. A high voltage transformer gets 90% efficiency. A household level transformer gets 50% efficiency. A short transmission line gets 20% loss, which is 80% efficiency. The total is 40% x 90% x 50% x 80% = 14.4% of the electrical energy recovered (85.6% lost) before getting to the vehicle and doing something similar to the gasoline engine in the vehicle."
http://www.nov79.com/elvp.html
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.