Previewing the Employment Situation Reports

Each month we ask the question, "What change in payroll employment would be consistent with other economic data from the same time period (the middle of the prior month)?

This is not a forecast, per se, since we do not posit any causal relationship among these variables. They are all concomitant indicators of economic activity. We use the four-week moving average of initial unemployment claims, the University of Michigan sentiment survey, and the ISM manufacturing report. We carefully choose data from the correct time period. Even though the ISM report was released yesterday, the survey is obviously from earlier in the month.

None of these indicators have improved very much, so we continue our negative outlook on employment. We were surprised last month when the job losses were less than we (and nearly everyone else) expected. We are still looking for losses over 550K, much worse than the consensus loss of about 400K.

Since our analysis is based upon the final data, after all revisions, the ultimate accuracy may not be known until next year! That is when final benchmark revisions are done. Also, the sampling error (90% confidence interval) alone on the payroll survey is more than +/-100K jobs.

Other Predictions

In addition to the consensus forecasts, there are various predictions using proprietary data. These are all interesting.

TrimTabs uses data from income tax deposits of salaried employees. They expect job losses of 472,000.

ADP (ADP) uses data from their payroll administration business, information that no one else has. They have attempted to gear their results to the "official" government report. They forecast a loss of 473,000 jobs, amazingly close to TrimTabs.

New entrant Wanted Technologies uses an algorithm reflecting online job ads. They have a startling forecast: a loss of "only" 260,000 jobs. Furthermore, they made their call on June 19th. And why not? That was the right time frame to match the payroll survey, and their online job data is more readily available in real time.

Conclusions

Our own prediction of the jobs report has no special inputs -- just the analysis of concurrent economic data. We are surprised to be the most bearish of the group. As noted, the error band is wide. The market will react wildly without regard to the sampling error or other issues.

We do have a few predictions that we can make with more confidence:

• Whatever the job loss, the unemployment rate will move higher. The demographic factors at work require job gains of at least 150,000 (and probably more) just to maintain current unemployment levels. The unemployment rate is an important social and political indicator, but it will lag in reflecting an economic change.
• The assembled punditry will state, whatever the number, that it should have been worse because the government is incorrectly projecting job creation.
• If the result is really good, the rumor mill will start, as it did last month. When the market spiked on a better-than-expected report for May, the rumors quickly circulated that it was an error -- a government worker had a "fat finger." Those circulating this rumor (and those believing it) have absolutely no concept about how government reports are assembled, how many people are involved, and how many check points there are.

It just shows that if you want to be short going into this report, you can have confidence that the Bearish Blogging Network (TM OldProf) will have your back. They will take advantage of the blogosphere to spin at high speed. The official sources have to wait for a news conference or an interview to reply. This is plenty of time to cover your shorts.

It is an attractive trade for any hedge fund manager. Take last month as an example. You could come in short and be an instant winner on a bad number. If the report was positive, you sell more on the spike (averaging up in price). You then cash in on the silly "fat finger" rumor and the expected monthly spin on the birth/death adjustment.

How Can this Work?

It is amazing. Take a roomful of traders. Ask them whether government or a trading desk is more efficient. We know what they would say. Trading desks can execute baskets with a keystroke. There are "fat finger" examples and also stories about interns sitting on keyboards.

Does anyone really think that a very complicated government report is generated in the same way? Well the silly story was good enough to move the market last month.

Comments

[markfl:]

"Mike Moran, chief economist at Daiwa Securities America in New York, said that some special factors limited job losses in May and overall economic conditions could not sustain the low number in June.

Anna Piretti, economist at BNP Paribas, forecast a 400,000 drop in payrolls in June.

'We now expect the pace of contraction in non-farm payrolls to worsen slightly in June, suggesting conditions in the labor market remain fragile,' Piretti said.

Steve Ricchiuto, economist at Mizuho Securities USA Inc, said that optimists have read too much into the sideways drift in recent jobless claims data. In a deep recession, declines in jobless claims may not signal a turning point, he said.

Ricchiuto also forecast a decline in payrolls of 400,000 in June."

www.marketwatch.com/st...

Jul 02 05:41 AM

[Daniel Herkes:]

"The assembled punditry will state, whatever the number, that it should have been worse because the government is incorrectly projecting job creation. "

Let's see them spin the 10% unemployment rate. Buy Aldi's stock.

Jul 02 07:03 AM

[John Lounsbury:]

Jeff - - -

You probably won't get any invitations to comment on CNBC. You are analyzing too much data. Why don't you start practicing sound bites? Then we could watch you on TV.

In case anyone misses my intent, the above is gratuitous satire.

Jeff, again a balanced discussion, including something that is ignored by most: the DOL, and the data they collect analyze and publish via the BLS, is professional and populated by very competent and apolitical career people. Yes, there is more that can be done with the data (which some of us keep trying to do), but the numbers are valid (within the acknowledged measurement errors) and the statistical models used by the BLS to assess possible adjustments have a long historical basis.

I, and others, have questioned whether some of these models may be off at this particular point in economic history. The current birth/death adjustments are an example. However, it is wrong to say the models are bogus or a political conspiracy. Models may have periods when they are less accurate than other times, but these are simply opportunities to add variables to the models for improved future accuracy.

Keep publishing your rational thoughts, Jeff. There are still some crazy people out here who appreciate the rational.

Jul 02 12:22 PM

[Tom Armistead:]

Good call. I heard Obama acknowledge that unemployment is going to 10%, several weeks ago when pushing his health care reform. Others heard it too, and nobody was surprised or shocked.

Then when the jobs report comes out consistent with the journey to 10% the market and the pundits react with a vengeance. Meanwhile the increase in ISM is reported but widely ignored.

This scenario could repeat itself for another 6 months.

Jul 02 08:22 PM