How Big the Gig Economy Really Is

By John Mauldin

There is growing awareness of what is being called the “gig economy.” It’s not just Uber driving or Airbnb. There are literally scores of websites and apps where you can advertise your services, get temporary or part time work, and do so from anywhere you happen to be.

Some “gigs” actually pay pretty good money, but they are for people with specialized skills who prefer to live a somewhat different lifestyle than the typical 9 to 5’er does. My hedge fund friend Murat Köprülü has been busy researching and documenting this phenomenon and regularly regales me with what he finds.

He goes and spends evenings and weekends with young gig workers, trying to figure out what it is they really do and how they make ends meet in New York City. It turns out they need a lot less to support their lifestyle than you might imagine, and they prefer working intermittent gigs, being able to do what they want, and having no boss.

A close look at the data indicates that the gig economy is indeed big and growing. But there is a great deal of debate among economists about how big it really is.

It’s Much Bigger Than the Employment Data Suggests

Gig workers don’t seem to show up clearly in the BLS employment data. Typically, we would expect those working in the gig economy to appear in the self employed category, but that category is actually drifting downward in numbers—relatively speaking.

But Harvard economist Larry Katz and Princeton’s Alan Krueger, who are working on research to document the rise of the gig economy in America, says that our current measures ignore the bulk of the gig economy.

 From a story at fusion.net:

Katz said two pieces of evidence suggest current measures of self-employment and multiple-job holding are “missing a large part of the gig economy.” The first is that the share of the employed (and of the adult population) filing a 1099 form, the tax document “gig economy” workers must file, increased in the 2000s, even as standard measures of self-employment declined in the 2000s. Other groups have confirmed this: Zen Payroll, a site that tracks the sharing economy, found increases in the share of 1099 workers across many major U.S. metros.

Source: Zen Payroll via Small Business Labs

And data from research group EconomicModeling.com show the share of traditional, 9-to-5 workers in the labor force has declined…..

Source: Fusion, data via EconomicModeling.com

… while those who categorize themselves as “miscellaneous proprietors” is climbing.

Source: Fusion, data via EconomicModeling.com

A recent survey found 60 percent of such workers get at least 25 percent of their income from gig economy work.

The problem with the BLS estimates is that they overlook a sizable chunk of the true gig economy.
And this report absolutely squares with what my friend Murat’s research is showing: that gig economy is not shrinking. On the contrary, it’s on the rise, and a quite rapid rise.

Subscribe to Thoughts from the Frontline

Follow Mauldin as he uncovers the truth behind, and beyond, the financial headlines in his free publication, Thoughts from the Frontline. The publication explores developments overlooked by mainstream news to help you understand what’s happening in the economy and navigate the markets with confidence.

The article was excerpted from John F. Mauldin’s Thoughts from the Frontline. Follow John Mauldin on Twitter. The article How Big the Gig Economy Really Is was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.


Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Crude Oil, Employment, and Growth

By John Mauldin

Last week we started a series of letters on the topics I think we need to research in depth as we try to peer into the future and think about how 2015 will unfold. In forecasting U.S. growth, I wrote that we really need to understand the relationships between the boom in energy production on the one hand and employment and overall growth in the US on the other. The old saw that falling oil prices are like a tax cut and are thus a net benefit to the US economy and consumers is not altogether clear to me. I certainly hope the net effect will be positive, but hope is not a realistic basis for a forecast. Let’s go back to two paragraphs I wrote last week:

Texas has been home to 40% of all new jobs created since June 2009. In 2013, the city of Houston had more housing starts than all of California. Much, though not all, of that growth is due directly to oil. Estimates are that 35–40% of total capital expenditure growth is related to energy. But it’s no secret that not only will energy related capital expenditures not grow next year, they are likely to drop significantly. The news is full of stories about companies slashing their production budgets. This means lower employment, with all of the knock on effects.

Lacy Hunt and I were talking yesterday about Texas and the oil industry. We have both lived through five periods of boom and bust, although I can only really remember three. This is a movie we’ve seen before, and we know how it ends. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has remarkable timing, slipping out the door to let new governor Greg Abbott to take over just in time to oversee rising unemployment in Texas. The good news for the rest of the country is that in prior Texas recessions the rest of the country has not been dragged down. But energy is not just a Texas and Louisiana story anymore. I will be looking for research as to how much energy development has contributed to growth and employment in the US.

Then the research began to trickle in, and over the last few days there has been a flood. As we will see, energy production has been the main driver of growth in the US economy for the last five years. But changing demographics suggest that we might not need the job creation machine of energy production as much in the future to ensure overall employment growth.

When I sat down to begin writing this letter on Friday morning, I really intended to write about how falling commodity prices (nearly across the board) and the rise of the dollar are going to affect emerging markets.

The risks of significant policy errors and an escalating currency war are very real and could be quite damaging to global growth. But we will get into that next week. Today we’re going to focus on some fascinating data on the interplay between energy and employment and the implications for growth of the US economy. (Note: this letter will print a little longer due to numerous charts, but the word count is actually shorter than usual.)

But first, a quick recommendation. I regularly interact with all the editors of our Mauldin Economics publications, but the subscription service I am most personally involved with is Over My Shoulder.
It is actually very popular (judging from the really high renewal rates), and I probably should mention it more often. Basically, I generally post somewhere between five and ten articles, reports, research pieces, essays, etc., each week to Over My Shoulder. They are sent directly to subscribers in PDF form, along with my comments on the pieces; and of course they’re posted to a subscribers-only section of our website. These articles are gleaned from the hundreds of items I read each week – they’re the ones I feel are most important for those of us who are trying to understand the economy. Often they are from private or subscription sources that I have permission to share occasionally with my readers.

This is not the typical linkfest where some blogger throws up 10 or 20 links every day from Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, newspapers, and a few research houses without really curating the material, hoping you will click to the webpage and make them a few pennies for their ads. I post only what I think is worth your time. Sometimes I go several days without any posts, and then there will be four or five in a few days. I don’t feel the need to post something every day if I’m not reading anything worth your time.

Over My Shoulder is like having me as your personal information assistant, finding you the articles that you should be reading – but I’m an assistant with access to hundreds of thousands of dollars of research and 30 years of training in sorting it all out. It’s like having an expert filter for the overwhelming flow of information that’s out there, helping you focus on what is most important.

Frankly, I think the quality of my research has improved over the last couple years precisely because I now have Worth Wray performing the same service for me as I do for Over My Shoulder subscribers. Having Worth on your team is many multiples more expensive than an Over My Shoulder subscription, but it is one of the best investments I’ve ever made. And our combined efforts and insights make Over My Shoulder a great bargain for you.

For the next three weeks, I’m going to change our Over My Shoulder process a bit. Both Worth and I are going to post the most relevant pieces we read as we put together our 2015 forecasts. This time of year there is an onslaught of forecasts and research, and we go through a ton of it. You will literally get to look “over my shoulder” at the research Worth and I will be thinking through as we develop our forecasts, and you will have a better basis for your own analysis of your portfolios and businesses for 2015.

And the best part of it is that Over My Shoulder is relatively cheap. My partners are wanting me to raise the price, and we may do that at some time, but for right now it will stay at $39 a quarter or $149 a year. If you are already a subscriber or if you subscribe in the next few days, I will hold that price for you for at least another three years. I just noticed on the order form (I should check these things more often) that my partners have included a 90 day, 100% money-back guarantee. I don’t remember making that offer when I launched the service, so this is my own version of Internet Monday.  

You can learn more and sign up for Over My Shoulder right here.

And now to our regularly scheduled program.

The Impact of Oil On U.S. Growth
I had the pleasure recently of having lunch with longtime Maine fishing buddy Harvey Rosenblum, the long-serving but recently retired chief economist of the Dallas Federal Reserve. Like me, he has lived through multiple oil cycles here in Texas. He really understands the impact of oil on the Texas and U.S. economies. He pointed me to two important sources of data.

The first is a research report published earlier this year by the Manhattan Institute, entitled “The Power and Growth Initiative Report.” Let me highlight a few of the key findings:

1. In recent years, America’s oil & gas boom has added $300–$400 billion annually to the economy – without this contribution, GDP growth would have been negative and the nation would have continued to be in recession.

2. America’s hydrocarbon revolution and its associated job creation are almost entirely the result of drilling & production by more than 20,000 small and midsize businesses, not a handful of “Big Oil” companies. In fact, the typical firm in the oil & gas industry employs fewer than 15 people. [We typically don’t think of the oil business as the place where small businesses are created, but for those of us who have been around the oil patch, we all know that it is. That tendency is becoming even more pronounced as the drilling process becomes more complicated and the need for specialists keeps rising. – John]

3. The shale oil & gas revolution has been the nation’s biggest single creator of solid, middle-class jobs – throughout the economy, from construction to services to information technology.

4. Overall, nearly 1 million Americans work directly in the oil & gas industry, and a total of 10 million jobs are associated with that industry.

Oil & gas jobs are widely geographically dispersed and have already had a significant impact in more than a dozen states: 16 states have more than 150,000 jobs directly in the oil & gas sector and hundreds of thousands more jobs due to growth in that sector.

Author Mark Mills highlighted the importance of oil in employment growth:



The important takeaway is that, without new energy production, post recession U.S. growth would have looked more like Europe’s – tepid, to say the least. Job growth would have barely budged over the last five years.

Further, it is not just a Texas and North Dakota play. The benefits have been widespread throughout the country. “For every person working directly in the oil and gas ecosystem, three are employed in related businesses,” says the report. (I should note that the Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank, so the report is pro-energy-production; but for our purposes, the important thing is the impact of energy production on recent US economic growth.)

The next chart Harvey directed me to was one that’s on the Dallas Federal Reserve website, and it’s fascinating. It shows total payroll employment in each of the 12 Federal Reserve districts. No surprise, Texas (the Dallas Fed district) shows the largest growth (there are around 1.8 million oil related jobs in Texas, according to the Manhattan Institute). Next largest is the Minneapolis Fed district, which includes North Dakota and the Bakken oil play. Note in the chart below that four districts have not gotten back to where they were in 2007, and another four have seen very little growth even after eight years. “It is no wonder,” said Harvey, “that so many people feel like we’re still in a recession; for where they live, it still is.”



To get the total picture, let’s go to the St. Louis Federal Reserve FRED database and look at the same employment numbers – but for the whole country. Notice that we’re up fewer than two million jobs since the beginning of the Great Recession. That’s a growth of fewer than two million jobs in eight years when the population was growing at multiples of that amount.



To put an exclamation point on that, Zero Hedge offers this thought:

Houston, we have a problem. With a third of S&P 500 capital expenditure due from the imploding energy sector (and with over 20% of the high yield market dominated by these names), paying attention to any inflection point in the U.S. oil producers is critical as they have been gung-ho “unequivocally good” expanders even as oil prices began to fall. So, when Reuters reports a drop of almost 40 percent in new well permits issued across the United States in November, even the Fed's Stan Fischer might start to question [whether] his [belief that] lower oil prices are "a phenomenon that’s making everybody better off" may warrant a rethink.

Consider: lower oil prices unequivocally “make everyone better off.” Right? Wrong. First: new oil well permits collapse 40% in November; why is this an issue? Because since December 2007, or roughly the start of the global depression, shale oil states have added 1.36 million jobs while non shale states have lost 424,000 jobs.

The writer of this Zero Hedge piece, whoever it is (please understand there is no such person as Tyler Durden; the name is simply a pseudonym for several anonymous writers), concludes with a poignant question:

So, is [Fed Vice-Chairman] Stan Fischer's “not very worried” remark about to become the new Ben “subprime contained” Bernanke of the last crisis?

Did the Fed Cause the Shale Bubble?

Next let’s turn to David Stockman (who I think writes even more than I do). He took aim at the Federal Reserve, which he accuses of creating the recent “shale bubble” just as it did the housing bubble, by keeping interest rates too low and forcing investors to reach for yield. There may be a little truth to that. The reality is that the recent energy boom was financed by $500 billion of credit extended to mostly “subprime” oil companies, who issued what are politely termed high yield bonds – to the point that 20% of the high yield market is now energy production related.

Sidebar: this is not quite the same problem as subprime loans were, for two reasons: first, the subprime loans were many times larger in total, and many of them were fraudulently misrepresented. Second, many of those loans were what one could characterize as “covenant light,” which means the borrowers can extend the loan, pay back in kind, or change the terms if they run into financial difficulty. So this energy related high yield problem is going to take a lot more time than the subprime crisis did to actually manifest, and there will not be immediate foreclosures. But it already clear that the problem is going to continue to negatively (and perhaps severely) impact the high-yield bond market. Once the problems in energy loans to many small companies become evident, prospective borrowers might start looking at the terms that the rest of the junk-bond market gets, which are just as egregious, so they might not like what they see. We clearly did not learn any lessons in 2005 to 2007 and have repeated the same mistakes in the junk bond market today. If you lose your money this time, you probably deserve to lose it.

The high yield shake out, by the way, is going to make it far more difficult to raise money for energy production in the future, when the price of oil will inevitably rise again. The Saudis know exactly what they’re doing. But the current contretemps in the energy world is going to have implications for the rest of the leveraged markets. “Our biggest worry is the end of the liquidity cycle. The Fed is done. The reach for yield that we have seen since 2009 is going into reverse,” says Bank of America (source: The Telegraph).

Contained within Stockman’s analysis is some very interesting work on the nature of employment in the post recession U.S. economy. First, in the nonfarm business sector, the total hours of all persons working is still below that of 2007, even though we nominally have almost two million more jobs. Then David gives us two charts that illustrate the nature of the jobs we are creating (a topic I’ve discussed more than once in this letter). It’s nice to have somebody do the actual work for you.

The first chart shows what he calls “breadwinner jobs,” which are those in manufacturing, information technology, and other white collar work that have an average pay rate of about $45,000 a year. Note that this chart encompasses two economic cycles covering both the Greenspan and Bernanke eras.



So where did the increase in jobs come from? From what Stockman calls the “part time economy.” If I read this chart right and compare it to our earlier chart from the Federal Reserve, it basically demonstrates (and this conclusion is also borne out by the research I’ve presented in the past) that the increase in the number of jobs is almost entirely due to the creation of part time and low wage positions – bartenders, waiters, bellhops, maids, cobblers, retail clerks, fast food workers, and temp help. Although there are some professional bartenders and waiters who do in fact make good money, they are the exception rather than the rule.



It’s no wonder we are working fewer hours even as we have more jobs.

To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – please click here.

The article Thoughts from the Frontline: Oil, Employment, and Growth was originally published at mauldin economics

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Employers Aren’t Just Whining: The “Skills Gap” Is Real

By John Mauldin

Paul Krugman and other notables dismiss the notion of a skills gap, though employers continue to claim they’re having trouble finding workers with the skills they need. And if you look at the evidence one way, Krugman et al. are right. But this week an interesting post on the Harvard Business Review Blog Network by guest columnist James Bessen suggests that employers may not just be whining, they may really have a problem filling some kinds of jobs.

Unsurprisingly, the problem is with new technology and the seeming requirement that workers learn new skills on the job – you know, like when the student pilot has to take the helm of a 747 in a disaster movie. Perhaps there’s not quite the same pressure in the office or on the factory floor, but the challenges can be almost as complex. Most of us have had the experience of needing to learn completely new ways of doing things, sometimes over and over again as the technology for whatever we’re doing keeps changing.

The proverb about old dogs and new tricks is being reversed, as old dogs are required to learn new tricks to keep up with the rest of the old dogs, not to mention the new pups. It’s either that or go sit on the porch. What follows is not a very long Outside the Box, but it’s thought-provoking.

There hasn’t been much happening in Uptown Dallas chez Mauldin. Lots of reading, routine workouts, long phone conversations with friends, and the occasional appearance of offspring. The amount of material hitting my inbox has slowed down considerably as well, although I know that will change in a week as everyone comes back from holidays. And even if we’re not on vacation, there is a certain slack we seem to cut ourselves in late summer.

Growing up, Labor Day marked the beginning of a brand new school year. Even though many school districts have pushed the start time back a few weeks, Labor Day seems to be a sort of national mental reset button that tells us we must refocus our attention on the tasks in front of us.

So, even with a somewhat reduced schedule, deadlines loom, and I have to do research on secular stagnation. It’s an interesting topic, but the stuff I’m reading about it reminds me to wonder why economists and investment writers feel they have to write in a way that is utterly stultifying and bone-sapping. A course or two in creative writing, with a focus on the creation of a narrative and some attention paid to the concept of a slippery slope ought to be requirements for an economics degree. Not that I have one – and maybe that’s my advantage.

Have a great week, and enjoy these last few days of August.
Your worried about how our kids will deal with the changing work landscape analyst,
Have a great week, and remember that robots need jobs too.
Your wanting more automation in his life analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Stay Ahead of the Latest Tech News and Investing Trends...

Click here to sign up for Patrick Cox’s free daily tech news digest.

Each day, you get the three tech news stories with the biggest potential impact.

---

Employers Aren’t Just Whining – the “Skills Gap” Is Real

By James Bessen 

Harvard Business Review HBR Blog Network

Every year, the Manpower Group, a human resources consultancy, conducts a worldwide “Talent Shortage Survey.” Last year, 35% of 38,000 employers reported difficulty filling jobs due to lack of available talent; in the U.S., 39% of employers did. But the idea of a “skills gap” as identified in this and other surveys has been widely criticized. Peter Cappelli asks whether these studies are just a sign of “employer whining;” Paul Krugman calls the skills gap a “zombie idea” that “that should have been killed by evidence, but refuses to die.” The New York Times asserts that it is “mostly a corporate fiction, based in part on self-interest and a misreading of government data.” According to the Times, the survey responses are an effort by executives to get “the government to take on more of the costs of training workers.”

Really? A worldwide scheme by thousands of business managers to manipulate public opinion seems far-fetched. Perhaps the simpler explanation is the better one: many employers might actually have difficulty hiring skilled workers. The critics cite economic evidence to argue that there are no major shortages of skilled workers. But a closer look shows that their evidence is mostly irrelevant. The issue is confusing because the skills required to work with new technologies are hard to measure. They are even harder to manage. Understanding this controversy sheds some light on what employers and government need to do to deal with a very real problem.

This issue has become controversial because people mean different things by “skills gap.” Some public officials have sought to blame persistent unemployment on skill shortages. I am not suggesting any major link between the supply of skilled workers and today’s unemployment; there is little evidence to support such an interpretation. Indeed, employers reported difficulty hiring skilled workers before the recession. This illustrates one source of confusion in the debate over the existence of a skills gap: distinguishing between the short and long term. Today’s unemployment is largely a cyclical matter, caused by the recession and best addressed by macroeconomic policy. Yet although skills are not a major contributor to today’s unemployment, the longer-term issue of worker skills is important both for managers and for policy.

Nor is the skills gap primarily a problem of schooling. Peter Cappelli reviews the evidence to conclude that there are not major shortages of workers with basic reading and math skills or of workers with engineering and technical training; if anything, too many workers may be overeducated. Nevertheless, employers still have real difficulties hiring workers with the skills to deal with new technologies.

Why are skills sometimes hard to measure and to manage? Because new technologies frequently require specific new skills that schools don’t teach and that labor markets don’t supply. Since information technologies have radically changed much work over the last couple of decades, employers have had persistent difficulty finding workers who can make the most of these new technologies.

Consider, for example, graphic designers. Until recently, almost all graphic designers designed for print. Then came the Internet and demand grew for web designers. Then came smartphones and demand grew for mobile designers. Designers had to keep up with new technologies and new standards that are still changing rapidly. A few years ago they needed to know Flash; now they need to know HTML5 instead. New specialties emerged such as user-interaction specialists and information architects. At the same time, business models in publishing have changed rapidly.

Graphic arts schools have had difficulty keeping up. Much of what they teach becomes obsolete quickly and most are still oriented to print design in any case. Instead, designers have to learn on the job, so experience matters. But employers can’t easily evaluate prospective new hires just based on years of experience. Not every designer can learn well on the job and often what they learn might be specific to their particular employer.

The labor market for web and mobile designers faces a kind of Catch-22: without certified standard skills, learning on the job matters but employers have a hard time knowing whom to hire and whose experience is valuable; and employees have limited incentives to put time and effort into learning on the job if they are uncertain about the future prospects of the particular version of technology their employer uses. Workers will more likely invest when standardized skills promise them a secure career path with reliably good wages in the future.

Under these conditions, employers do, have a hard time finding workers with the latest design skills. When new technologies come into play, simple textbook notions about skills can be misleading for both managers and economists.

For one thing, education does not measure technical skills. A graphic designer with a bachelor’s degree does not necessarily have the skills to work on a web development team. Some economists argue that there is no shortage of employees with the basic skills in reading, writing and math to meet the requirements of today’s jobs. But those aren’t the skills in short supply.

Other critics look at wages for evidence. Times editors tell us “If a business really needed workers, it would pay up.” Gary Burtless at the Brookings Institution puts it more bluntly: “Unless managers have forgotten everything they learned in Econ 101, they should recognize that one way to fill a vacancy is to offer qualified job seekers a compelling reason to take the job” by offering better pay or benefits. Since Burtless finds that the median wage is not increasing, he concludes that there is no shortage of skilled workers.

But that’s not quite right. The wages of the median worker tell us only that the skills of the median worker aren’t in short supply; other workers could still have skills in high demand. Technology doesn’t make all workers’ skills more valuable; some skills become valuable, but others go obsolete. Wages should only go up for those particular groups of workers who have highly demanded skills. Some economists observe wages in major occupational groups or by state or metropolitan area to conclude that there are no major skill shortages. But these broad categories don’t correspond to worker skills either, so this evidence is also not compelling.

To the contrary, there is evidence that select groups of workers have been had sustained wage growth, implying persistent skill shortages. Some specific occupations such as nursing do show sustained wage growth and employment growth over a couple decades. And there is more general evidence of rising pay for skills within many occupations. Because many new skills are learned on the job, not all workers within an occupation acquire them. For example, the average designer, who typically does print design, does not have good web and mobile platform skills. Not surprisingly, the wages of the average designer have not gone up. However, those designers who have acquired the critical skills, often by teaching themselves on the job, command six figure salaries or $90 to $100 per hour rates as freelancers. The wages of the top 10% of designers have risen strongly; the wages of the average designer have not. There is a shortage of skilled designers but it can only be seen in the wages of those designers who have managed to master new technologies.

This trend is more general. We see it in the high pay that software developers in Silicon Valley receive for their specialized skills. And we see it throughout the workforce. Research shows that since the 1980s, the wages of the top 10% of workers has risen sharply relative to the median wage earner after controlling for observable characteristics such as education and experience. Some workers have indeed benefited from skills that are apparently in short supply; it’s just that these skills are not captured by the crude statistical categories that economists have at hand.

And these skills appear to be related to new technology, in particular, to information technologies. The chart shows how the wages of the 90th percentile increased relative to the wages of the 50th percentile in different groups of occupations. The occupational groups are organized in order of declining computer use and the changes are measured from 1982 to 2012. Occupations affected by office computing and the Internet (69% of these workers use computers) and healthcare (55% of these workers use computers) show the greatest relative wage growth for the 90th percentile. Millions of workers within these occupations appear to have valuable specialized skills that are in short supply and have seen their wages grow dramatically.



This evidence shows that we should not be too quick to discard employer claims about hiring skilled talent. Most managers don’t need remedial Econ 101; the overly simple models of Econ 101 just don’t tell us much about real world skills and technology. The evidence highlights instead just how difficult it is to measure worker skills, especially those relating to new technology.

What is hard to measure is often hard to manage. Employers using new technologies need to base hiring decisions not just on education, but also on the non-cognitive skills that allow some people to excel at learning on the job; they need to design pay structures to retain workers who do learn, yet not to encumber employee mobility and knowledge sharing, which are often key to informal learning; and they need to design business models that enable workers to learn effectively on the job (see this example). Policy makers also need to think differently about skills, encouraging, for example, industry certification programs for new skills and partnerships between community colleges and local employers.

Although it is difficult for workers and employers to develop these new skills, this difficulty creates opportunity. Those workers who acquire the latest skills earn good pay; those employers who hire the right workers and train them well can realize the competitive advantages that come with new technologies.

More blog posts by James Bessen
More on: Economy, Hiring

James Bessen

James Bessen, an economist at Boston University School of Law, is currently writing a book about technology and jobs. You can follow him on Twitter.

Like Outside the Box?

Sign up today and get each new issue delivered free to your inbox.
It's your opportunity to get the news John Mauldin thinks matters most to your finances.

The article Outside the Box: Employers Aren’t Just Whining: The “Skills Gap” Is Real was originally published at Mauldin Economics

Make sure to check out our "Beginners Guide to Trading Options"....Just Click Here!

Option Trading: A Basic Explanation of Debit Spreads

Welcome back to the world of options. My reality exists in three dimensions and far more combinations of potential positions than does the one-dimensional world of the stock trader.

The view from my turret is ruled by the three primal forces of options — time to expiration, price of the underlying, and implied volatility. Consider for a moment the fact that each of these factors can independently impact a given option.

Multiply this by several available expiration dates and strike prices; add in the fact that individual option positions can include a variety of short and long positions at different strikes and expirations, and the potential combinations that make up an option position in a single underlying can approach a very large number.

For those traders first beginning to navigate this unfamiliar world, I think it is important to understand trade selection is manageable. There are certain families of trades that are unified by similar characteristics.

It is important to become familiar with the various trade constructions available to the knowledgeable options trader. Grouping the potential trades into related groups dramatically reduces the number of trade setups you must consider before entering a new trade.

If you are familiar with the various trade constructions, it makes discussion of a specific family member whom we may consider for employment in a trade far easier to understand.

Description of the family characteristics will take a little time, but it forms the framework on which we can hang the individual trades we will discuss in future postings.

I want readers to begin to become familiar with these patterns because it is these families of multi-legged option trades that we will return to on a regular basis to consistently perform for us.

Let me begin discussion of the various families by pointing out the redheaded stepchild of the trade constructions available. This family member, the single-legged position of being long either a put or call, is not completely without utility.

The reason for its seldom use is that for the knowledgeable options trader, this position rarely represents the best risk / reward structure given the variety of available trade constructions.

One basic and important family is that of the vertical spread. We will return several times to this family not only because of its utility in its basic form, but also because these spreads form the basic building blocks for more advanced spreads such as butterflies and iron condors.

The basic vertical spread is constructed by both buying and selling an option of the same type, either puts or calls, within the same expiration series. This is a directional spread with one breakeven point that reaches maximum profitability at expiration or when the spread has moved deep in-the-money.

It has a defined maximum profit and defined maximum loss when established. The spread is used to trade directionally in a capital efficient manner and largely neutralizes impacts of changes in implied volatility.

There are four individual vertical spread family members — the call debit spread, the call credit spread, the put debit spread, and the put credit spread. Each has its distinct and defining construction pattern. These are not the only names by which these spreads are known. Trying to keep independent option traders confined to a single set of terminologies is like trying to herd cats — it is not going to happen.

For this reason, the additional confusing and duplicative names for these spreads include bull call spread, bear call spread, bear put spread, and bull put spread. To make matters even more confusing, traders often refer to “buying a call spread” or “selling a put spread.” This multiplicity of names for the same trade structure is mightily confusing to those getting used to my world.

I am a visual learner and find that a picture is worth well more than the often cited thousand words. When I review in my mind the various option families available to use in trade construction, I think of the characteristic family portrait of each as displayed in the profit and loss, or P&L, curve.

Attached below is the first in our series of family portraits, but remember within this framework is abundant room for individual variation.

This particular example is a call debit spread, a bullish position in Apple (AAPL).

We will see trades displayed in this format with many variations as we meet the different families. The solid red line represents the profit or loss at expiration. The dotted line represents the P&L curve today and the dashed line the curve halfway to options expiration from today.

In future articles I will discuss other trade constructions that are regularly employed by experienced option traders. Until then, be sure to manage your risk accordingly.

In 2012 subscribers of my options trading newsletter have won 12 out of 13 trades. That’s a 92% win rate,  pocketing serious gains with the trades focusing only on low risk credit spread options strategies.

If you are looking for a simple one trade per week trading style then be sure to join Option Trading Signals.com today with our 14 Day Trial

J.W. Jones

Employment Numbers Give Crude Oil Bulls Hope

Better then expected employment numbers have commodity traders attempting to push crude oil out of the current trading range as crude traded as high as $84.00 in Wednesday evenings overnight session. But trading at the opening of U.S. markets this morning make it painfully obvious, it's not enough. The financial crisis in Europe is front and center for these markets.

Stochastics and the RSI are oversold and are turning bullish hinting that a low may be in. But closes above the 20 day moving average crossing at 83.46 are needed to confirm that a short term low has been posted. If November extends this year's decline, the 75% retracement level of the 2009-2011 rally crossing at 72.20 is the next downside target.

First resistance is the 20 day moving average crossing at 83.46. Second resistance is the reaction high crossing at 84.77. First support is Monday's low crossing at 74.95. Second support is the 75% retracement level of the 2009-2011 rally crossing at 72.20. Crude oil pivot point for Thursdays trading is 81.52.


Don't miss Chris Vermeulens take on the markets direction. Read "Gold, DAX and Dollar Still Pointing to Sharply Lower Prices"

Crude Oil Falls for Third Day as U.S. Job Losses Spur Concern Over Demand Growth

Crude oil fell the most in a month as weaker-than-forecast growth in U.S. company payrolls bolstered concern that the economic rebound in the world’s biggest oil consuming country is slowing. Oil slipped as much as 2.2 percent after the Labor Department said private payrolls that exclude government agencies rose by 71,000, less than forecast, after a gain of 31,000 in June that was smaller than previously reported. A government report on Aug. 4 showed that U.S. fuel supplies rose last week as demand fell.

“The fundamental news today is that the U.S. economy isn’t creating enough jobs,” said Tim Evans, an energy analyst at Citi Futures Perspective in New York. “There’s no indication that this situation will change anytime soon. There were already doubts about demand, and inventories remain elevated.” Crude oil for September delivery fell $1.15, or 1.4 percent, to $80.86 a barrel at 12:45 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices are heading for the biggest decline since July 1. Futures are up 2.4 percent this week.

Brent crude oil for September settlement declined $1.31, or 1.6 percent, to $80.30 a barrel on the London based ICE Futures Europe exchange. Economists projected a 90,000 rise in private jobs, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. Overall employment fell 131,000 and the jobless rate held at 9.5 percent, according to the department. “We’re losing jobs, not adding them,” said Michael Fitzpatrick, vice president of energy at MF Global in New York. “This is hardly a signal that energy demand will be vibrant in coming months”.....Read the entire article.

Back and Better than Ever....MarketClub 2 Week Free Trial

Share