Federal Reserve Economic Data

The FRED® Blog

Hiring at firms, large and small

The Great Recession, with its layoffs and slow hiring, drastically decreased the employment rate. But not every firm behaved the same, and there are striking patterns across firm size. At small firms, employment fell by less and recovered to pre-recession levels more quickly than at large firms. The graph shows this consistent pattern through the firm-size distribution. (Note that the level of employment for each size category is normalized to the level in December 2007, just before the recession.)

Employment at the smallest firms (1 to 19 employees) fell by 2.7% at the nadir in June 2010 and then recovered by February 2012. Employment at the largest firms (1000+ employees) fell by 12.7% at the nadir in January 2010 and has only just recovered to pre-recession levels. The peaks are also different: At large firms, employment began declining in the spring of 2006, though it was slow at first. At the smallest firms, employment began to fall only in the autumn of 2008.

What makes small and large firms different and how does this explain the very different experiences during the Great Recession? This behavior is consistent with a job ladder across firms, a line of research explored extensively by Giuseppe Moscarini and Fabian Postel-Vinay: If larger firms tend to be more productive, they can offer higher wages and attract workers from smaller, less-productive firms. As the cycle turns downward, they no longer pursue new workers, as workers are less profitable. This means that growth at large firms slows down because they’re hiring less, but small firms stay the same size because they lose fewer workers. Yet, small firms are often thought to be more sensitive to credit conditions. While large firms can use retained earnings to fund operations to a point, small firms may require outside capital. It’s surprising, then, to see relatively robust employment levels at small firms despite difficulties in credit access associated with the Great Recession.

How this graph was created: Go to “Categories -> ADP Employment” and select “Nonfarm Private Payroll Employment” at various firm sizes: (1-19), (20-49), etc. Add the series to the graph. In the “Edit Graph” tab, change the units to “Index” and scale to December 2007. Select “Copy to All” to apply this transformation to all of the series.

Suggested by David Wiczer.

View on FRED, series used in this post: NPPTL1, NPPTL2, NPPTM, NPPTS1, NPPTS2

S’weird in Switzerland

Today is Switzerland’s national holiday, and of course FRED has Swiss data, which can be especially interesting because the Swiss economy is in many ways out of the ordinary. Previous FRED Blog posts have discussed the “peculiar” Swiss unemployment rate as well as its negative interest rates. In fact, as of today, the Swiss 50-year government bond has a negative nominal yield.

Today we look at the Swiss exchange rate. The graph shows in green the exchange rate of the Swiss franc with the euro, including a dramatic change on January 15, 2015. Unlike other countries’ exchange rate troubles, this event is actually an appreciation of the Swiss franc. Swiss franc appreciation is bad for exports, which Switzerland depends on. Because the franc has long been viewed as a refuge currency when economic trouble brews in Europe or elsewhere, it has been under a lot of appreciation pressure for some time. The Swiss National Bank has tried to cap the exchange rate at 1.20 for some time, flooding the currency markets with francs in exchange for euros and other assets. This sounds like a dream come true for any central banker: print money at will without negative consequences. Yet, this environment was unsustainable and, on January 15, 2015, the SNB decided to stop managing the exchange rate. The franc appreciated by about 20% almost immediately, and LIBOR interest rates dropped deep into negative territory. The graph shows the 3-month LIBOR in red.

How this graph was created:  NOTE: Data series used in this graph have been removed from the FRED database, so the instructions for creating the graph are no longer valid. The graph was also changed to a static image.

Suggested by Christian Zimmermann.

View on FRED, series used in this post: CHF3MTD156N, DEXSZUS, DEXUSEU

The equity premium

The equity premium is the difference between the return on a stock and the return on a bond. Typically, it’s positive—meaning stock returns are higher—although it can be negative when the stock market goes through some rough times. Over the long run, it’s definitively positive because bonds are senior to stocks in any liquidation: Bonds carry less risk and, therefore, less yield. Measuring the equity premium is tricky, though. To do it right, you must compare stocks and bonds from firms of similar quality and aggregate over many firms to smooth out anecdotal evidence and small-sample errors. Using broad indexes may also be distorting, as the firm composition may not be comparable between stock and bond indexes.

In the graph above, FRED shows one of the many examples of how you can measure the equity premium with available data, using here the very broad Wilshire 5000 index for stocks and the BofA Merrill Lynch BBB index for bonds. (BBB is a category that may be somewhat representative: not very safe but not very risky, either.) You can experiment on FRED with many other combinations. Again, you’ll find the result is positive most of the time, reflecting the simple investment advice that if saving for the long-run warrants a diversified portfolio of stocks.

How this graph was created: Search for “Wilshire 5000” and choose the total market index. Change units to “Percent Change from Year Ago.” In the “Edit Line” tab, add the second series by search for “BBB effective yield.” Customize the data by applying the formula a-b. Finally, change the frequency to monthly to make the graph less noisy.

Suggested by Christian Zimmermann.

View on FRED, series used in this post: BAMLC0A4CBBBEY, WILL5000IND


Back to Top