Oklahoma Economic Report · 2014. 3. 1. · Oklahoma Economic Report TM February 28, 2014 T he...

A publication of the Office of the State Treasurer • Treasurer Ken Miller, Ph.D.

Economic Report TM

Oklahoma

News and analysis of Oklahoma’s economy

Inside

• Commentary by Governor Mary Fallin: The time to fix the Capitol is now

• January a healthy month for state economy

• Gross receipts and General Revenue compared

• Economic indicators

Contributor

Regina Birchum, Deputy Treasurer for Policy/Chief of Staff

Editor

Tim Allen, Deputy Treasurer for Communications and Program Administration

State Capitol Building, Room 217 • Oklahoma City, OK 73105 • (405) 521-3191 • www.treasurer.ok.gov

Volume 4, Issue 2 • February 28, 2014

SEE SPENDING PAGE 3

In January, a chart published by the Council of State Governments (CSG) was covered in the Oklahoma Economic Report (OER). It caught our attention since it listed Oklahoma as the top state in the nation for percentage of state expenditures from federal funds. After confirming Oklahoma was erroneously ranked, CSG provided accurate data from the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), from which a corrected graph was created depicting federal spending in the states, as reported by state budget officers.

The corrected graph demonstrated

an interesting juxtaposition in the percentage of federal funds received by states and their political party control. In general, states with Republican-controlled legislatures appeared more dependent on federal funds than those under Democratic control. Looking for explanation of this juxtaposition, the OER reviewed various reports on federal spending administered by the states and found a lack of data consistency.

NASBO’s annual State Expenditure Report is based on amounts reported by each state’s budget offices. However, the report shows spending totals for

Oklahoma that are $4 billion higher than what was reported in Oklahoma’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).

The U.S. Census Bureau publishes yet another report on state government expenditures, but its data matches neither the NASBO nor CAFR numbers. This month, the OER completed its analysis using the Census Bureau’s 2012 Annual Survey of State Government Finances, just released in late January. Census data has long been considered the gold standard for empirical analysis.

Red, blue and green

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Miss

issip

pi

Lou

isia

na

Ten

ne

sse

eSo

uth

Da

kota

Miss

ou

riM

on

tan

aG

eo

rgia

Ariz

on

aN

ew

Me

xic

oM

ain

eA

lab

am

aO

reg

on

Wyo

min

gKe

ntu

cky

Okl

ah

om

aId

ah

oO

hio

Ve

rmo

nt

We

st V

irgin

iaTe

xas

Ark

an

sas

Ne

bra

ska

Rh

od

e Is

lan

dM

ich

iga

nIo

wa

No

rth

Ca

rolin

aIn

dia

na

Ne

w Y

ork

Sou

th C

aro

lina

Flo

rida

Uta

hPe

nn

sylv

an

iaM

ary

lan

dN

ew

Ha

mp

shire

Co

lora

do

Wa

shin

gto

nW

isco

nsin

Min

ne

sota

Ca

lifo

rnia

Kan

sas

Ne

w J

ers

ey

Illin

ois

Ne

vad

aD

ela

wa

reC

on

ne

ctic

ut

Ha

wa

iiV

irgin

iaM

ass

ac

hu

sett

sN

ort

h D

ako

taA

lask

a

Republican LegislatureDemocratic LegislatureSplit Party Control

Oklahoma35.5%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2012 Annual Survey of State Government Finance/Party affiliation from NCSL

Federal Spending by State GovernmentsPercentage of state spending

www.treasurer.ok.gov

Oklahoma Economic Report TM February 28, 2014

The Oklahoma Capitol was built in 1917. Since then it has been the

People’s House - a place where state business is conducted and laws are written and passed. It is also a living museum where school children and other visitors come to learn about the history of their state and the workings of their government. For many who pass through Oklahoma, it is the lasting impression they have of our home.

I am proud of this building. I am proud of the work that has gone into acquiring and preserving the priceless portraits, paintings and murals that showcase our history. When the dome was completed in 2002, I thought the people of Oklahoma finally had the kind of beautiful, functional Capitol building they deserved.

Unfortunately, the Capitol has been allowed to slowly decompose. Scheduled maintenance and repairs have been put off and unfunded for years.

The results have been predictable: the building that should be a source of pride for our state and its citizens has become an embarrassment and a safety hazard.

The exterior is falling apart, to the point where we must actually worry

about employees and visitors being hit by falling pieces of the façade.

The yellow barriers outside are an eyesore and an embarrassment. The electrical system is dangerously outdated.

Raw sewage is literally leaking into our basement. As I told the Legislature in my State of the State address this year, on “good” days you can see the disrepair. On bad days, you can smell it.

It is absolutely essential that this kind of deterioration stops, and we begin the process of restoring and repairing this beautiful building.

That means, first and foremost, finding a funding source.

Oklahoma’s Capitol architect believes repairs will cost $160 million. As a state, we have two ways of coming up with that money: we can pass a bond, and pay back the cost of the repairs over time; or we can appropriate cash from our existing revenue.

Some of our legislators have expressed an interest in paying in cash. They are worried about debt and the added cost of interest. They are fiscal conservatives, like I am, and I understand their motivations. In fact, because Oklahoma is such a conservative state, we have one of the lowest debt rates in the nation.

Having low debt is good, but the fact remains that paying in cash for a large, one-time expense like Capitol repairs can be unrealistic and undesirable. Think of a family buying a $160,000 house. For almost every family, paying in cash is impossible. A responsible loan is the most realistic way to cover that cost. Even

“Diverting $160 million to Capitol repairs means taking money away from very real needs. That’s not fiscally conservative; it’s just irresponsible.”

SEE GOVERNOR PAGE 3

www.treasurer.ok.gov •

The time to fix the Capitol is now

Governor’s CommentaryBy Governor Mary Fallin



Opinions and positions cited in the Oklahoma Economic ReportTM are not necessarily those of Oklahoma State Treasurer Ken Miller or his staff, with the exception of the Treasurer’s Commentary, which of course, is the viewpoint of the treasurer.

GovernorFROM PAGE 2

SpendingFROM PAGE 1

for a wealthier family, paying in cash might be possible but undesirable. Sure, a well-off family might be able to free up $160,000 in cash, but they might also have to take their children out of college to do so.

That’s the position the state of Oklahoma is in today. We have a $160 million expense on our hands. Diverting $160 million to Capitol repairs means taking money away from education, public safety, and other very real needs. That’s not fiscally conservative; it’s just irresponsible.

The good news is that, like a mortgage, a bond is a common-sense, affordable alternative. Debt payment would amount to about $10.3 million a year. Furthermore, most of the state’s modest debt is soon coming off the books. In 2018, 41 percent of Oklahoma’s debt will be retired, and more than 86 percent will be eliminated in the next 13 years.

That means a bond for Capitol repairs can be added without significantly adding to state debt in the long term.

Pursuing a bond may also help our credit rating. Last year, state Treasurer Ken Miller and I went to

New York City to visit with credit rating agencies like Moody’s. One of the first things they told us was that our state would have trouble getting a better credit rating until we invested more in our infrastructure, including the state capitol.

All of this means that a bond issue is the best, most realistic way of funding Capitol repairs. I am asking our legislators, as well as all the people in Oklahoma, to lend their voices to the chorus of support for responsible repairs and restoration to one of the great jewels of our state: the People’s House at 23rd and Lincoln.

SEE SPENDING PAGE 4Sources: U.S. Census Bureau/Party affiliation from NCSL

Federal Spending by State GovernmentsPer capita

$0

$1,500

$3,000

$4,500

Ala

ska

Wyo

min

gV

erm

on

tM

issi

ssip

pi

No

rth

Da

kota

Ne

w Y

ork

Ne

w M

exi

co

Lou

isia

na

We

st V

irgin

iaM

on

tan

aR

ho

de

Isla

nd

Ma

ine

Ore

go

nA

rka

nsa

sD

ela

wa

reSo

uth

Da

kota

Iow

aO

kla

ho

ma

Ke

ntu

cky

Min

ne

sota

Mic

hig

an

Oh

ioTe

nn

ess

ee

Mis

sou

riM

ary

lan

dH

aw

aii

Ne

bra

ska

Ala

ba

ma

Ariz

on

aU

tah

Co

nn

ec

ticu

tP

en

nsy

lva

nia

Ind

ian

aN

ort

h C

aro

lina

Ida

ho

Wis

co

nsi

nM

ass

ac

hu

sett

sN

ew

Je

rse

ySo

uth

Ca

rolin

aTe

xas

Ca

lifo

rnia

Wa

shin

gto

nG

eo

rgia

Ka

nsa

sN

ew

Ha

mp

shire

Co

lora

do

Illin

ois

Flo

rida

Virg

inia

Ne

vad

a


Oklahoma$1,963

The Census Bureau report, which compiles information about the sources of state government revenue, shows that on average 31.6 percent of state revenues are in the form of federal funds. However, the figures only include federal funds administered by the states. Excluded is all other federal domestic spending, including salaries and wages, procurement contracts, and retirement and disability payments.

The largest category of federal grants received by the states is for public welfare and includes funds for the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program and Medicaid. Nearly $300 billion in grants were disbursed to states for these assistance programs.



SpendingFROM PAGE 3

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey, 2010 to 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplements - three-year average poverty rate/Party affiliation from NCSL

Poverty RatePercentage of Population Living in Poverty

0

5

10

15

20

25

Lou

isia

na

Miss

issip

pi

Ne

w M

exi

co

Ge

org

iaA

rizo

na

Ark

an

sas

Texa

sSo

uth

Ca

rolin

aKe

ntu

cky

Ten

ne

sse

eW

est

Virg

inia

No

rth

Ca

rolin

aN

ew

Yo

rkC

alif

orn

iaA

lab

am

aO

kla

ho

ma

Ne

vad

aIn

dia

na

Flo

rida

Oh

ioM

isso

uri

Mo

nta

na

Mic

hig

an

Ida

ho

Kan

sas

Ore

go

nR

ho

de

Isla

nd

Sou

th D

ako

taIll

ino

isD

ela

wa

reM

ain

ePe

nn

sylv

an

iaH

aw

aii

Co

lora

do

Wa

shin

gto

nW

isco

nsin

Ala

ska

No

rth

Da

kota

Ve

rmo

nt

Ma

ssa

ch

use

tts

Ne

bra

ska

Virg

inia

Uta

hN

ew

Je

rse

yIo

wa

Min

ne

sota

Ma

ryla

nd

Wyo

min

gC

on

ne

ctic

ut

Ne

w H

am

psh

ire

Republican LegislatureDemocratic LegislatureSplit Party ControlOklahoma

16.1%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau/Party affiliation from NCSL

Educational AttainmentPercentage of adult population with at least Bachelor’s Degree

10

20

30

40

Ma

ssa

ch

use

tts

Ma

ryla

nd

Co

lora

do

Co

nn

ec

ticu

tN

ew

Je

rse

yV

erm

on

tV

irgin

iaN

ew H

am

psh

ireN

ew

Yo

rkM

inn

eso

taW

ash

ing

ton

Rh

od

e Is

lan

dC

alif

orn

iaIll

ino

isH

aw

aii

Kan

sas

Uta

hO

reg

on

Ne

bra

ska

Ge

org

iaM

on

tan

aM

ain

eD

ela

wa

reA

lask

aFl

orid

aPe

nn

sylv

an

iaN

ort

h D

ako

taN

ort

h C

aro

lina

Wisc

on

sinA

rizo

na

Texa

sSo

uth D

ako

taN

ew

Me

xic

oM

ich

iga

nM

isso

uri

Ida

ho

Iow

aO

hio

Sou

th C

aro

lina

Wyo

min

gO

kla

ho

ma

Ind

ian

aTe

nn

ess

ee

Ne

vad

aA

lab

am

aLo

uisi

an

aKe

ntu

cky

Ark

an

sas

Miss

issip

pi

We

st V

irgin

ia


Oklahoma22.8%

The next largest grant disbursement was for education, with more than $90 billion in funds being sent to the states.

The federal government issued highway grants totaling $43.2 billion, and disbursed $26.2 billion in grants to state governments for health and hospital related functional activities.

Even though NASBO and the Census Bureau show different figures, both demonstrate a distinct dominance of “red” states among top recipients of federal funds and of “blue” states among the bottom recipients. Interestingly, however, the Census data show the lowest recipient state is one with a Republican-led legislature.

In Mississippi, the highest recipient for FY-12, federal funds accounted for more than 45 cents of every dollar expended by the state. In Alaska, the lowest recipient for FY-12, 20 cents of every dollar spent was derived from federal grants. Oklahoma, with 35.5 percent of all expenditures coming from federal funds, ranked 15th among all states for federal funds as a percentage of state expenditures. This is markedly different from the NASBO data, which showed Oklahoma with a rank of 7th highest in federal spending, which goes to show that using different data sets can produce vastly different outcomes.

Of the top ten states with the highest percentage of federal funds relative to state spending, just two were states with Democrat-controlled legislatures. Among those states using the lowest percentage of federal funds, two were Republican-controlled and one had split party control.

While significant, the amount of funds distributed in the form of federal grants is eclipsed by the amount of funds the federal government disburses directly to individuals.

SEE SPENDING PAGE 5




Sources: USAspending.gov/U.S. Census Bureau/Party affiliation from NCSL

Direct Federal Payments to CitizensPer capita average

$500

$750

$1,000

$1,250

$1,500

We

st V

irgin

iaN

ort

h D

ako

taM

ain

eSo

uth

Da

kota

Ark

an

sas

Ala

ba

ma

Mo

nta

na

Iow

aSo

uth

Ca

rolin

aFl

orid

aKe

ntu

cky

Ne

bra

ska

Mic

hig

an

Rh

od

e Is

lan

dV

erm

on

tD

ela

wa

rePe

nn

sylv

an

iaN

ew

Ha

mp

shire

Ten

ne

sse

eM

ississ

ipp

iO

reg

on

Okl

ah

om

aM

isso

uri

No

rth

Ca

rolin

aKa

nsa

sW

isco

nsis

nIn

dia

na

Ne

w M

exi

co

Wa

shin

gto

nH

aw

aii

Oh

ioA

rizo

na

Min

ne

sota

Co

nn

ec

ticu

tId

ah

oM

ass

ac

hu

sett

sLo

uisi

an

aN

ew

Yo

rk

Ne

w J

ers

ey

Virg

inia

Wyo

min

gG

eo

rgia

Ne

vad

aIll

ino

isM

ary

lan

dC

olo

rad

oTe

xas

Ca

lifo

rnia

Ala

ska

Uta

h


Oklahoma$1,200

Note: Includes funds paid to individuals for services such as Social Security, unemployment compensation, Housing Choice vouchers, and Pell Grants.

Unfortunately, there is no complete source of data that shows all federal funds distributed to the states. Until 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau released the annual Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR), a comprehensive publication containing information on federal spending, summarizing all expenditures – including federal grants, awards, contracts, salaries and direct payments to individuals by program, agency, state, county and congressional district.

The CFFR was eliminated in the FY-12 federal budget. The last complete report published is for FY-10. That report showed that direct payments to individuals for retirement and disability payments, Medicare and other benefits totaled more than $1.7 trillion, compared to federal grants totaling $675 billion. In 2010, Oklahoma received $21.6 billion in federal funds in the form of direct payments to individuals.

The federal website USAspending.gov provides some, but not all data previously provided by the CFFR. The site has received criticism from the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization whose mission is to make government transparent and accountable, for having inconsistent and incomplete spending data. The federal Office of Management and Budget acknowledged the website’s shortcomings in June 2013 when it issued a memo to all chief financial officers at federal agencies requesting better reporting of data to improve the reliability and quality of the report.

Using the 2014 USAspending.gov data, Oklahoma ranked 23rd among states

SpendingFROM PAGE 4

SEE SPENDING PAGE 7

in direct payments from the federal government, with a total of $4.5 billion, but those funds are described as only including funds paid to individuals for services such as Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Housing Choice Vouchers and Federal Pell Grants.

Another data set previously provided by the CFFR is federal salaries and wages, including those employed by the Department of Defense and the U.S. Postal Service, both of which have strong presences in Oklahoma.

The information provided in the 2010 CFFR depicts a much more balanced distribution of federal funds across the country. Of the 27 states that received federal funds below the national average, Oklahoma being one of them, there were more red states than blue. Fifteen states had Republican-led legislatures, 10 had Democrat-controlled

legislatures, and two had split party control.

Those states receiving federal funds above the national average included 11 red states, 10 blue, and two with split party control.

The fact that states’ dependence on federal funds changes so much when all federal funds are evaluated, including those that are received directly by individuals and local governments, indicates that funding may have less to do with a state’s discretionary policymaking and more to do with socioeconomic factors. A state that receives less federal grants than others may receive above-average federal funds depending on what is received by local governments and individuals.

Factors contributing to the variations in federal funds across the states include population, poverty rates, educational




January a healthy month for state economyOklahoma’s economy, as reflected in monthly gross receipts to the treasury, set new highs in January, said State Treasurer Ken Miller.

Miller said three components of gross receipts entered new territory during the first month of 2014: Record highs were set for sales tax collections and personal income tax withholding payments; and for gross receipts in a January, a new high was set.

“Oklahomans earned and spent at record levels during the past month,” he said.

“Also, total receipts last month brought in more than in any other January, indicating healthy performance of the

state economy.”

January sales tax collections, from purchases made between mid-December and mid-January, generated $378.33 million – up by $13.04 million or 3.6 percent from

last January. The previous high was set last July with $369.22 million.

Personal income tax withholding payments of $280.29 million topped the SEE REVENUE PAGE 7

“Oklahomans earned and spent at record levels during the past month.”

The Treasurer’s February 5 gross receipts to the treasury report and the Office of Management and Enterprise Services’ February 11 General Revenue Fund (GRF) report contain several differences.

January gross receipts totaled $1.07 billion, while the GRF received $610.5 million or 57.1% of the total.

The GRF received between 32.2% and 57.1% of gross receipts during the past 12 months.

From January gross receipts, the GRF received:

• Personal income tax: 72.2%

• Corporate income tax: 70.1%

• Sales tax: 44.8%

• Gross production-Gas: 1.7%

• Gross production-Oil: 64.9%

• Motor vehicle tax: 31.8%

• Other sources: 64.9%

January GRF allocations topped the estimate by $37.2 million or 6.5%. Fiscal year-to-date allocations remain below the estimate by $150.3 million or 4.5%.

For January, insurance premium taxes totaled $93,000.

Tribal gaming fees generated $10.1 million during the month.

Gross receipts & General Revenue

compared

Source: Office of the State Treasurer

10.1%

5.9%

Monthly Gross Receipts vs. Prior YearFebruary 2013 – January 2014

Percentage change from prior year

-2.4%-3%

1%

4%

8%

11%

Feb-13

Mar-13

Apr-13

May-13Jun-13

Jul-13

Aug-13Sep

-13Oct-13Nov-13Dec-13Jan

-14

Income TaxGross ProductionSales TaxMotor VehicleOther




RevenueFROM PAGE 6

previous record set a year ago in January by $12.28 million or 4.6 percent. Withholding payments are remitted by employers from funds withheld from workers’ paychecks and are a key component of total personal income tax payments.

Total gross collections in January were $1.07 billion, topping the previous January high set last year by $59.32 million or 5.9 percent.

“The Oklahoma economy continues its expansion at the beginning of the year,” Miller said. “Relatively steady growth in gross collections has become the norm over the past few years, such that it has

become somewhat expected. But as we have seen, that doesn’t necessarily translate to the General Revenue Fund.”

Miller noted that the record collections are an indicator of the strength of Oklahoma’s economic output and are not the result of revenue raising measures. In fact, taxes have been cut over the past several years.

SpendingFROM PAGE 7

attainment, and the composition of the workforce, especially military and federal workers.

Examining the purposes of the funds provided by the federal government is just as important as examining the amount of funds. Oklahoma may receive total federal funds below the national

average, according to the CFFR, but as the Census data show, it is above average in its use of grants, the bulk of which go toward social assistance. 2012 Census data also shows Oklahoma, with 17.2 percent of its population falling below the federal poverty line, as having a poverty rate higher than the 15.9 percent national average.

The amount of federal funds used by states only tells part of the story, but it

does provide insight as to what functions of state government are most dependent on federal assistance – a useful tool for policymakers as they seek to become less dependent on shrinking federal funds.

This also underscores the importance of not committing a fallacy of composition, in which a conclusion is drawn about the whole based on an observation of a subset.

Sources: OMES, SDE, OSRHE

Federal Funds Received by Oklahoma State Government –

FY-13

Agency Match Required Federal Funds

Health Care Authority 10 to 50% $ 2,973,824,275Department of Human Services 6.78 to 100% $ 2,058,771,308State Department of Education None $ 653,999,509Department of Transportation Varies, 20 to 100% $ 506,729,342State Regents for Higher Education Varies $ 270,910,481State Department of Health Varies, $11,775 to $2,825,000 $ 181,752,277Department of Veterans Affairs Varies, 35% $ 111,567,699Department of Commerce Varies, 20 to 100% $ 72,092,703Department of Rehabilitative Services Varies, 10 to 21.8% $ 67,794,444Department of Public Safety None $ 31,508,555Oklahoma Water Resources Board Varies, 5 to 40% $ 29,750,507Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management 10 to 50% $ 28,088,423Department of Environmental Quality Varies, 40% $ 16,034,559JD McCarty Center 36% $ 15,936,279Department of Wildlife Conservation 25% $ 15,010,042CareerTech varies, 80:20 $ 12,400,936Office of Juvenile Affairs Varies, 10 to 50% $ 6,430,156Department of Corrections Varies, 25 to 50% $ 3,867,293Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation Varies, 10% $ 3,776,316Oklahoma Corporation Commission Varies, 10 to 80% $ 3,767,125Department of Libraries Varies, 34% $ 3,644,120Office of the Attorney General None $ 2,918,744Department of Tourism and Recreation None $ 2,157,692Department of Labor 10 to 50% $ 1,407,037Department of Mines 20 to 50% $ 1,196,176Oklahoma Commission on Children and Youth None $ 1,000,000Oklahoma Conservation Commission None $ 1,000,000Arts Council 1:1 $ 720,800Commissioners of the Land Office None $ 269,035Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs None $ 249,981Office of Disability Concerns None $ 133,329Board of Medicolegal Investigations None $ 29,296

Total $ 7,078,738,439

State Regents for Higher Education4%

Department of Transportation7%

State Department of Education9%

Department of Human Services29%

Health Care Authority 42%



Oklahoma Economic Report TM

Economic Indicators

February 28, 2014

$0

$1.40

$2.80

$4.20

$5.60

$7.00

Feb-

11A

pr-1

1Ju

n-11

Aug

-11

Oct

-11

Dec

-11

Feb-

12A

pr-1

2Ju

n-12

Aug

-12

Oct

-12

Dec

-12

Feb-

13A

pr-1

3Ju

n-13

Aug

-13

Oct

-13

Dec

-13

Feb-

14

0

30

60

90

120

150

Active Rigs

Price

Pric

e p

er M

CF

Ac

tive R

igs

Sources: Baker Hughes & U.S. Energy Information Administration

Oklahoma Natural Gas Prices & Active Rigs

$50

$65

$80

$95

$110

Feb-

11A

pr-1

1Ju

n-11

Aug

-11

Oct

-11

Dec

-11

Feb-

12A

pr-1

2Ju

n-12

Aug

-12

Oct

-12

Dec

-12

Feb-

13A

pr-1

3Ju

n-13

Aug

-13

Oct

-13

Dec

-13

Feb-

14

0

50

100

150

200

Active Rigs

Price

Pric

e p

er B

BL Ac

tive R

igs

Oklahoma Oil Prices & Active Rigs

Sources: Baker Hughes & U.S. Energy Information Administration

Oklahoma

1.0

3.0

5.0

7.0

9.0

11.0

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

U.S.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Unemployment RateJanuary 2001 – January 2014

Shaded areas denote U.S. recessions

5.4%

6.6%

$9

$10

$11

$12

Jul-08

Jan-09

Jul-09

Jan-10

Jul-10

Jan-11

Jul-11

Jan-12

Jul-12

Jan-13

Jul-13

Jan-14

$11.28Dec-08

$9.36Feb-10

$11.51Jan-14

Oklahoma 12-Month Gross ReceiptsJuly 2008 - January 2014

(in billions)

Shaded area denotes U.S. recession Source: Office of the State Treasurer

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

Feb-09Aug-09

Feb-10Aug-10

Feb-11Aug-11

Feb-12Aug-12

Feb-13Aug-13

Feb-14

5-year average

Oklahoma Stock IndexTop 25 capitalized companies

Shaded area denotes U.S. recession Source: Office of the State Treasurer

-6

-5

-3

-2

0

2

3

5

Dec-03

Dec-04

Dec-05

Dec-06

Dec-07

Dec-08

Dec-09

Dec-10

Dec-11

Dec-12

Dec-13

Leading Index for Oklahoma

Source: Federal ReserveShaded area denotes U.S. recession

This graph predicts six-month growth by tracking leading indicators of the state economy including initial unemployment claims, interest rate spreads, manufacturing and earnings.


Oklahoma Economic Report · 2014. 3. 1. · Oklahoma Economic Report TM February 28, 2014 T he...

Documents

Transcript of Oklahoma Economic Report · 2014. 3. 1. · Oklahoma Economic Report TM February 28, 2014 T he...