Owen B's Comments

17-Month High for ECRI Leading Indicators

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:00:37 -0500

Just to be clear, the market and the economy are two different things. Am I right in thinking the ECRI is talking about the economy and Edwards is talking about the market?

Why So Much Skepticism Regarding the Rally?

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:19:44 -0500

Well put article.

The ECRI comes to a similar conclusion -- more frequent recessions -- from their cyclical viewpoint.

www.ritholtz.com/blog/.../

U.S. Economy: One Green Shoot + A Mixed Bag

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:07:36 -0500

In the ECRI book they review the performance of the WLI and stock prices when the 2001 recession was getting underway. The WLI fell sharply while the S&P ran up about 20%. Then S&P fell more than that, before 9/11. In this case the WLI was right about the economy, and stocks gave a false signal.

I'd agree that WLI isn't something that forecasts stocks, partly because it purportedly includes stocks. But it also has other stuff in it, so-called drivers of the cycle. The WLI then is something that can corroborate stock moves, or not.

On Dec 13 12:23 PM Isnt_It_Just_Money wrote:

> The ECRI looks exactly like a smoothed plot of the S&P 500 and
> yet the signs of real economic improvement are virtually non existant.
> I therefore conclude that the ECRI is erroneous in the face of a
> balance sheet depression.

ECRI Forecasts a Smooth Recovery

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:14:18 -0500

ECRI says "outlook remains positive."

Reuters says "smooth recovery."

Given all that ECRI's been saying about booms and busts lately I think Reuters may be editorializing here by suggesting "smooth.".

www.ritholtz.com/blog/.../

Chart of the Day: Leading Indicator Waves the Caution Flag

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:35:07 -0500

Yes, but my point was different. Many blame the global recession on the Lehman failure, etc. ECRI was saying pervasive global recession BEFORE the Lehman failure. That's notable.

The other links point to ECRI's recession call in Jan '08 and Mar '08. I agree that they held off longer than many, but please read their reasoning before dismissing them.

On Dec 09 10:05 PM Swashbuckler wrote:

> The comments of the ECRI director in August of 2008 (BEFORE the Lehman
> debacle) were not exactly visionary nor enlightening. According to
> NBER, at that time, we had already been in a recession for 9 months.
> My 11 year old niece knew we were in a recession.

Chart of the Day: Leading Indicator Waves the Caution Flag

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:37:14 -0500

I see. Well, good luck with your approach!

On Dec 09 07:29 PM logicalthought wrote:

> By 2008, we were-- for all practical purposes-- in the recession
> already. Thus, all they did was declare that concurrently, with no
> real lead time. When they could have provided useful lead time--
> say, in early 2007-- they didn't, and, in fact, said multiple times
> that a recession would be avoided.

Chart of the Day: Leading Indicator Waves the Caution Flag

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:56:07 -0500

You link to items in 2007. Thank you, I've seen many of them before.

What do you make of the Jan '08, Mar '08 and Aug '08 links that I gave you? Do you want to revise your assertion that, "The ECRI guys completely missed the current recession, claiming we'd be able to avoid it right up until we were in the middle of it."

As for your wallet, it would be better off if you'd heeded their public statements (see left-hand column here: businesscycle.com)

Also, you might want to rethink your statement that ECRI uses econometric models unless you have some evidence to back up your claim. As far as I know they don't. They say they use leading indexes, which cannot be mistaken for an econometric model.

I do, however, agree wholeheartedly with you that economic models are highly suspect!

On Dec 09 05:53 PM logicalthought wrote:

> Unfortunately, as a non-subscriber I can only link to reports that
> provide some excerpts with insight into their thinking. That said,
> perhaps you missed these:
>
> www.businesscycle.com/.../
> www.businesscycle.com/.../
> www.businesscycle.com/.../
> www.businesscycle.com/.../
> www.businesscycle.com/.../
> www.businesscycle.com/.../
> www.businesscycle.com/.../

Chart of the Day: Leading Indicator Waves the Caution Flag

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:19:25 -0500

Hi logicalthought,

It seems you missed the ECRI's detailed public statement in Jan. 2008 when then said, "a self-reinforcing downturn has already begun. If allowed to continue, it will amount to the vicious cycle known as a business cycle recession."

You can read the whole piece here: kirklindstrom.blogspot...

Also, don't miss their Mar. 2008 follow up where they comment, "Some will rightly argue that recessions are cathartic and that to try and avert a recession with stimulus would be tantamount to rewarding the bad behavior of those contributing to the housing and credit bubbles. Perhaps, but we must also recognize that recessions bring with them collateral damage affecting millions of innocent bystanders."

You can read that piece here: kirklindstrom.blogspot...

And lest you forget, here's a clip of the ECRI director in August 2008 pointing out the reality of a "pervasive" global downturn BEFORE the Lehman debacle (many like to think it was primarily Lehman that drove the global economy into a tailspin): bloomberg.com/avp/...

On Dec 09 12:39 PM logicalthought wrote:

> The ECRI guys completely missed the current recession, claiming we'd
> be able to avoid it right up until we were in the middle of it. This
> is because all the "economic modeling" in the world was (and is)
> no substitute for common sense, as in "house prices equaled ATM machines,
> and house prices were sliding, so where was the money going to come
> from?" And the inverse of that is also true: Until house prices start
> significantly going up again, where will the money come from? Well,
> ECRI, where will it come from?

Economic Data: Let’s Go Spin Some

Sun, 06 Dec 2009 09:37:43 -0500

I did not know this, thank you. I know statistics are dangerous things, but isn't a decline in the SA U6, all things equal, still notable (on a short-term basis, see ECRI long-term warning).

On Dec 06 08:52 AM Wildebeest wrote:

> @ Owen B
>
> The U6 unemployment actually rose. It was the seasonally adjusted
> number that fell. The NSA number is actually lower than the SA number
> also. I wish they'd just do away with SA stuff and present raw (admittedly
> survey) data.
>
> www.bls.gov/news.relea...
>
> There is also 3.3 million people who claim they want a job but are
> not included in the statistics. A BLS official confirmed this to
> me in an email.
>
> www.bls.gov/news.relea...
>
> it is the "Persons who currently want a job" minus "Marginally attached
> to the labor force" number. You'll also note in that table that 3
> million people have dropped out of the labor force since Nov 08.

Economic Data: Let’s Go Spin Some

Sun, 06 Dec 2009 06:46:26 -0500

As always, thanks for your summary and views. A few observations to throw in the mix:

1. looks like the ECRI weekly "coincident" index is now showing positive growth.

2. what do you make of the broader U6 unemployment rate falling? is it suspect too?

3. ECRI, for the first time in a while, is waving a warning flag, albeit longer term: www.businesscycle.com/.../

"This morning's news of a drop in the unemployment rate to ten percent is a welcome development. It was presaged by earlier strength in reliable leading employment indicators, which suggest that this improving pattern will persist next year. In November employers cut the fewest jobs since the recession began, but how should Americans interpret this information? With unemployment in double digits for the first time since 1983, many still worry about the jobless recovery.

The post-recession dip in joblessness is the good news. But, looking ahead to the later phase of the expansion, the post-World War II period shows disturbing cyclical patterns.

The jobless rate usually sees a sizeable drop during the economic recovery — and bigger recessionary spikes in unemployment are typically followed by larger declines during the first year of improving unemployment. So it would be no surprise if, a year after the unemployment rate begins to drop, it falls to the nine percent range.

The real problem is that the rate of decline in joblessness slows during the rest of the economic expansion. The annual postwar pace of decline in unemployment during these periods has been reasonably uniform, the median being 0.5% a year.

If that pattern persists, the U.S. economy needs to keep expanding without interruption until 2020 for unemployment to fall to its pre-recession low of 4.4%. Should the next recession arrive earlier, as we suspect, it will take much longer. The implications constitute nothing short of a wake-up call for policy makers who promise to get job growth back on track.

Since World War II, there has been a clear easing pattern in the trend rate of economic growth during expansions, culminating in the 2001-07 expansion, which showed the slowest trend rate of growth on record — especially in terms of jobs. Ominously, during expansions following the initial year of revival, growth in non-manufacturing employment has been falling in a parabolic fashion since the 1970s. A continuation of this pattern would lead a much worse job market than almost anyone expects.

The "great moderation" of business cycles once extolled by many economists, including Chairman Bernanke, is history. The trend rate of growth is shriveling. In other words, business cycles are back with a vengeance.

The real risk is of more frequent recessions repeatedly aborting cyclical downswings in unemployment in coming years. Some consolation comes from the fact that past performance does not dictate destiny, and extrapolation from past patterns is not a reliable forecasting method, especially if the pattern is about to change.

It is at least conceivable that either enlightened policy measures, or good luck, or both, will result in a decisive break from these patterns. The silver lining is that even an economy dipping in and out of recessions and keeping joblessness cycling near historical highs is a navigable one for decision makers who keep a closer watch for recessions and recoveries."

The Recovery Is on Schedule - ECRI

Sat, 05 Dec 2009 10:36:07 -0500

Not all bullish from ECRI, at least not longer term. They had an article on NPR Friday:

www.npr.org/templates/...

Friday's news of a drop in the unemployment rate to 10 percent is a welcome development. It was presaged by earlier strength in reliable leading employment indicators, which suggest that this improving pattern will persist next year. In November, employers cut the fewest jobs since the recession began, but how should Americans interpret this information? With unemployment in double digits for the first time since 1983, many still worry about the jobless recovery.

The post-recession dip in joblessness is the good news. But, looking ahead to the later phase of the expansion, the post-World War II period shows disturbing cyclical patterns.

The jobless rate usually sees a sizable drop during the economic recovery — and bigger recessionary spikes in unemployment are typically followed by larger declines during the first year of improving unemployment. So it would be no surprise if, a year after the unemployment rate begins to drop, it falls to the 9 percent range.

The trend rate of growth is shriveling. In other words, business cycles are back with a vengeance.

The real problem is that the rate of decline in joblessness slows during the rest of the economic expansion. The annual post-war pace of decline in unemployment during these periods has been reasonably uniform, the median being 0.5 percent a year.

If that pattern persists, the U.S. economy needs to keep expanding without interruption until 2020 for unemployment to fall to its pre-recession low of 4.4 percent. Should the next recession arrive earlier, as we suspect, it will take much longer. The implications constitute nothing short of a wake-up call for policy makers who promise to get job growth back on track.

Since World War II, there has been a clear easing pattern in the trend rate of economic growth during expansions, culminating in the 2001-07 expansion, which showed the slowest trend rate of growth on record — especially in terms of jobs. Ominously, during expansions following the initial year of revival, growth in nonmanufacturing employment has been falling in a parabolic fashion since the 1970s. A continuation of this pattern would lead a much worse job market than almost anyone expects.

The "great moderation" of business cycles once extolled by many economists, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, is history. The trend rate of growth is shriveling. In other words, business cycles are back with a vengeance.

The real risk is of more frequent recessions repeatedly aborting cyclical downswings in unemployment in coming years. Some consolation comes from the fact that past performance does not dictate destiny, and extrapolation from past patterns is not a reliable forecasting method, especially if the pattern is about to change.

It is at least conceivable that either enlightened policy measures, or good luck, or both, will result in a decisive break from these patterns. The silver lining is that even an economy dipping in and out of recessions and keeping joblessness cycling near historical highs is a navigable one for decision-makers who keep a closer watch for recessions and recoveries.

Show Me Economic Expansion, Chairman Bernanke

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:58:57 -0500

Thank you Steve. I tend to follow the ECRI indexes over the Conference Board's for reasons to numerous to mention. Focusing on the two charts for ECRI's coincident index growth rate, I agree that through Oct. their "monthly" coincident index was not showing positive growth, but their "weekly" coincident index seems close to going positive. What do you make of this? Does this then bode well for the next update of the monthly coincident index?

Nouriel Roubini, One on One: More Doom and Gloom

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:10:21 -0400

A synopsis of just what Roubini's been forecasting (and why) over the past few years and why: www.erictyson.com/arti...

Here's a similar video and soundtrack: www.youtube.com/watch?...

Why the ECRI Is a Good Economic Indicator

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:52:52 -0400

> A1 = I've always looked at the WLI as something to confirm cyclical
> moves in stocks, and that is worth a lot to me.

>That seems dangerous given that the WLI apparently includes market data. Depending on the weighting given to the market data in the WLI determination your confirmation could end up being circular.

Not really as the WLI is not only stocks but also other unrelated indicators, i.e., confirming... and agreed, not leading the market at all.

On Oct 16 12:10 PM Wildebeest wrote:

> On Oct 16 11:04 AM Owen B wrote:

'BTE' Earnings Masking Signs of Coming Market Correction?

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:33:53 -0400

Thanks for the update, and list of things to watch as warning signs of a possible correction. However, I disagree with the characterization of Shedlok's article as "thorough." ECRI's reply shows that Shedlok's understanding of the WLI is limited.

www.businesscycle.com/.../

www.ritholtz.com/blog/...

Why the ECRI Is a Good Economic Indicator

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:04:05 -0400

A1 = I've always looked at the WLI as something to confirm cyclical moves in stocks, and that is worth a lot to me.

A2 = look at the link of a WLI vs. GDP chart that Kirk provided two comments above yours :-).

On Oct 16 08:33 AM Wildebeest wrote:

> As per instablog comment:
>
> The chart you have included clearly shows the ECRI WLI to be a coincident
> indicator at best, and on occasions a lagging indicator -- of the
> S&P at least. Therefore you can't draw anymore meaningful information
> from the ECRI WLI than you could from the S&P 500. (qualifier:
> for this data set dating back to early 01)
>
> Normally your articles are packed with data, and informative, here
> there is no data to support the title of the article.
>
> Q1. Is the ECRI WLI a leading indicator for the S&P 500?
>
> A1. Data set provided shows it isn't. It is coincident mostly but
> sometimes lagging. i.e the chart doesn't support the thrust of the
> article.
>
> Q2. Is the ECRI WLI a leading indicator for the economy?
>
> A2. Who knows. The chart I'd like to see is the ECRI WLI overlaying
> quarterly changes in GDP. That way we can see if it is a leading
> indicator of how the economy is travelling.

Why the ECRI Is a Good Economic Indicator

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:56:46 -0400

I generally agree with what you've written, with one important nuance. As I focus in on the run up to the start of the recession, ECRI was clearly pointing out the recession risk, but they were going on to make a delicate point about how cycles work -- not necessarily for us investors -- but seemingly for policy makers. (Delicate points don't do well on blogs I'm afraid.) The point being that there was a brief opportunity to create a manufacturing "short-squeeze" that would have forestalled (not prevented) the recession. This is important because once the recession took hold on top of the housing/credit mess, we would be/were in for a more nasty ride down than if policy was in a better position to handle the expanding credit crunch. If you know anything about ECRI, and clearly you do, they do not believe recessions can be avoided. I got most of this from a Jan. 2008 post from ECRI: kirklindstrom.blogspot...

Roubini: Don't Expect a V-Shaped Recovery

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:29:36 -0400

Roubini in context...

www.erictyson.com/arti...

No Chance of a 'V' Recovery

Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:39:22 -0400

Yes, in March they said recession a done deal (at the time there was a big debate about recession because GDP was still coming in positive): kirklindstrom.blogspot...

But a few months earlier in January they were waving a BIG yellow flag for anyone that was listening, pointing out an unusual inventory situation/opportunity that was lost on everyone, especially policy makers: kirklindstrom.blogspot...

On Oct 04 09:33 AM JCC wrote:

> Agreed - Furthermore ECRI predicted the current mess a little late
> in March 2008, which was plenty of time to get out and preserver
> your capital.
>
> ECRI has done pretty well in the economic prediction business.
>

No Chance of a 'V' Recovery

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:43:44 -0400

You wrote, "ECRI has been wrong before and they were in 2007 about the strength of our economy"

But I've heard ECRI state that GDP growth reached a 4-year high in mid-2007. Is that not true?

On Oct 02 04:16 PM enigmaman wrote:

> Your points of fact are well taken but
>
> 1-ECRI has been wrong before and they were in 2007 about the strength
> of our economy
> 2-We have more houses then qualified buyers and 6 million more foreclosures
> on the horizon, builders are selling at looses just to stay in business,
> so housing is now our ball and chain and not the cavalry
> 3-India and East Asia are doing fine so far, whom will they sell
> their wares to to maintain their GDP, it wont be USA ,then who?
4-
> Like all headlines, they show we are breaking records all over the
> place, but what lies underneath those numbers, todays stats were
> sobering because they indicate economy still needs to be in ICU and
> also needs pacemaker to keep its heart beating
> 5- Foreign demand for what?
>
> I want a V shape recovery, I really do, everyone prospers from a
> good economy, there is no reason to want it to falter because it
> takes all down with it. Then again there is no reason to believe
> everything will come up roses because we want it to, to expect a
> V shaped recovery after all that this economy and its people have
> been through in such a short time and facing a government that insists
> on adding debt upon debt without worry about an 18% tax revenue shortfall
> is insane, OK wishful thinking. The devil is in the details and the
> details are what we are not getting, but they are there is you search
> for them and when you find them they are worse then you expected,
> like today workers are losing hours worked at an unrepresented pace,
> worse then anticipated. Give you an idea about unemployment, at 9.8%,
> the Pres said his stimulus would add 3million jobs in the next two
> year, Ha, but lets say it did, the unemployment numbers would not
> change because the underemployed represent 3 million jobs, so before
> we can add one new job employers have to bring current employtees
> back up to 40 hrs work week. So the uphill battle is steeper then
> the Admin is letting on, peel the onion and make sure you hold your
> nose and shield your eyes otherwise it will make you cry

Leading Economic Indicator Isn't Indicating the Real Recovery

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:33:38 -0400

The LEI is a bastardized version of it's original self. Geoffrey Moore (ECRI Founder) helped develop the original LEI in 1960, but since 1979 he left it to the mainstream economist to manage (see how that worked out) and he went forth with the WLI and other leading indexes at Columbia University and ECRI.

As a result the LEI and WLI often diverge, and the LEI is usually a step behind (same thing happened with 2001 recession).

www.bloomberg.com/apps...

BTW, is your chart of ECRI's weekly coincident is showing some upturn, or not?

Looks Like a 'V' to Me

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:30:26 -0400

In your post about how ECRI must be wrong, you missed (?) reports that don't hold up with your conclusions.

kirklindstrom.blogspot...

On Sep 17 07:21 AM logicalthought wrote:

> Gee, and what was ECRI saying about the future in, say, July of 2007?
> Well, let's go to the videotape:
> www.businesscycle.com/.../
>
> How about February of '08? Although the full report isn't available
> to non-subscribers, this little summary makes its conclusions pretty
> clear:
> www.businesscycle.com/.../
>
> Seeing as they completely missed the mess we're currently in, what
> makes you think they can accurately forecast its end?

What if It Is a 'V' Recovery?

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:37:44 -0400

This blog post (see link below) chronicles links to more complete ECRI public statements from Jan. 2008 - Mar. 2008 regarding recession:

kirklindstrom.blogspot...

After careful review, it seems ECRI was not surprised by the recession as some have tried to suggest.

On Sep 07 09:16 AM fotokemist wrote:

> Thanks to all for an enlightening post and discussion. I am new to
> this game and continue to be amazed at the quality of information
> and discussion available on the web.
>
> If memory serves, Steve posted something in February or March from
> ECRI predicting improving business conditions by summer (pardon my
> laziness for not digging this up.) My point is that somewhere there
> is an ECRI report from six months ago for each month.
>
> Could one of you folks much more experienced than me do an assessment
> of how they have been doing recently?
>
> I am among the group that is concerned that the level of government
> interference compared to earlier events may have had an adverse effect
> on their models. Given my poor understanding of cause and effect
> in the current environment, any knowledge of their models, etc.,
> I would find some current "calibration data" very helpful.
>
> Steve, thanks again for all your effort.

Shanghai Index Declines 4.7%: Bubblevision Permabulls vs. Web Permabears

Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:09:17 -0400

JF, I agree with you that there were a few individuals that called end of Armageddon in early March, but I was thinking more of market sentiment as a whole.

Have you seen this? www.reuters.com/articl...

Here Come the Economic Clowns

Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:05:12 -0400

Either ECRI is totally full of it, or people are going to be caught flat-footed:

www.reuters.com/articl...

Shanghai Index Declines 4.7%: Bubblevision Permabulls vs. Web Permabears

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:28:54 -0400

Good article.

Reading this passage i found myself out of step with your description, but then figured being out of step is what makes a market.

"The sky is falling-financial Armageddon" phase ended Mar 6-9 at SPX 666 low; then "the recession will soon be over phase," whose end can be dated no later than Apr 29-30 when ECRI made that call, though the market had it figured out much earlier than that; followed by a May-June market consolidation; then "the better-than-expected 2Q earnings" phase, starting July 13 with Meredith Whitney’s pre-opening Goldman call on CNBC; followed quickly by "the better-than-expected 3Q GDP phase," which just ended as at least six major banks raised their estimates to around 3%."

My sense is similar, but with slightly different timing:

=The sky is falling/Armageddon phase lasted well into May.

=Sometime in May, following ECRI "end of recession this summer" call, I think Armageddon did come off the table for most.

=Then in June as the market fell, bears gained some control, with variations on an "Armageddon light" story.

=Armageddon light then passed away with the GDP and report on July jobs, and people need to decide if they want to finally buy in when the markets up 45% from its lows.

Here Come the Economic Clowns

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:47:52 -0400

Hi Steve,

I'm with you but I don't get what you mean here,

"one final point, i am seeing no economic indicator -except leading ones such as new orders - which shows this great recession is ending. and this data is subjective, not objective."

This doesn't seem to jibe with your regular posting of ECRI leading indexes? I also have been led to understand that their indexes are "objective."

OB

On Aug 09 07:28 AM Steven Hansen wrote:

> markfl
> i always read John Lounsbury and you will find my comment already
> there.
>
> you are correct about trucking being a coincident indicator. the
> problem is that there is no quantitative pulse point (data set).
> if you look at my history, logistics is one of the areas i consult.
>
>
> however, sea and rail transport do provide timely real time data
> to analyze. and both of these remain with the recessionary levels.
>
>
> one final point, i am seeing no economic indicator -except leading
> ones such as new orders - which shows this great recession is ending.
> and this data is subjective, not objective.
>
> when i see quantitative data rising, i MIGHT think things are getting
> better. the problem with quantitative data in the next few months
> is that it is stimulus driven. i am not a fan of stimulus, and all
> it does is make big W's economically.

Key Market Factors: Global Melt-Up, Consolidation or Correction?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 09:44:54 -0400

Given the tenor of this post, I would ask, how big of a deal is it when the bears give in and take equity exposure? Is that something that plays out over months or quarters?

Videos of the Week: Abby Joseph Cohen, Larry Summers, Bernanke and More

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 08:45:38 -0400

Usually Achuthan/ECRI interviews are short, leaving unanswered questions.

Here is a 10 minute discussion with CNBC India that goes into detail on US outlook: www.businesscycle.com/.../

Beating on the Federal Reserve

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:41:39 -0400

ECRI posted new stuff about their home price upturn call on their website: businesscycle.com

A summary.

"With U.S. home values far below their boom-time highs, most observers are resigned to an indefinite downdraft in home prices. It is this uncertainty about the ultimate bottom in home prices that has converted so many mortgage-related derivatives into toxic assets. Yet, at long last, the end of the home price downturn is in sight.

One key reason for the turnaround in the outlook is housing affordability, which is hovering around all-time highs. The current combination of drastically reduced home prices and very low mortgage rates has hardly ever been seen in living memory…

Most importantly, the U.S. Leading Home Price Index (USLHPI), designed to predict cyclical turns in real home prices, has now been rising for five months… But a three P’s analysis (see chart below) of the level of the USLHPI reveals an even more promising picture… the recent upturn in the USLHPI is almost as pronounced as the median in comparable past cycles… it is almost as pervasive; and … it is just as persistent. The implication is clear: this is a genuine cyclical upturn in the level of the USLHPI. Such an upturn in the USLHPI amounts to a forecast of a cyclical upturn in the level of home prices this year…"