Better than Expected Initial Jobless Claims 14 comments
November 05, 2009
- Profile & More Articles
- Bespoke's blog: Think B.I.G.
- Market Research: Bespoke Premium
- Bespoke Money Management
- Bespoke Institutional
- Contact Bespoke
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Today's lower than expected reading in initial jobless claims (512K) for the week ending 10/31 brought the four-week moving average down to 523.75K, which ties for the lowest reading of the year (1/10). With nine straight weeks of declines in the four-week moving average, it's hard to argue that things aren't at least improving.
click to enlarge
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication in the last week
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Those with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last week
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,
as ranked by their peers-
1
User 353732
-
2
Moon Kil Woong
-
3
doubleguns
-
4
optionsgirl
-
5
Mayascribe
Top Commenters » -
1
-
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
On Nov 05 10:05 AM Shimmers wrote:
> Improving? They are getting worse at a very fast, albeit slightly
> slower, pace.
On Nov 05 10:05 AM Shimmers wrote:
> Improving? They are getting worse at a very fast, albeit slightly
> slower, pace.
You guys have had enough punch! You're drunk!
About had it up to here with this "not as bad" bull crap!
1982-11-06 626250
1982-11-13 612000
1982-11-20 600500
1982-11-27 594250
1982-12-04 586250
1982-12-11 569750
1982-12-18 554500
1982-12-25 523750
1983-01-01 518000
1983-01-08 512250
1983-01-15 503000
1983-01-22 500500
1983-01-29 492750
1983-02-05 490500
1983-02-12 492250
1983-02-19 494250
1983-02-26 488750
1983-03-05 487250
1983-03-12 484500
1983-03-19 480250
1983-03-26 480250
1983-04-02 479250
1983-04-09 484500
1983-04-16 495750
1983-04-23 497500
1983-04-30 497250
1983-05-07 496750
1983-05-14 484000
On Nov 05 04:11 PM thiazole wrote:
> This is for all the bears who posted above who wouldn't know a V
> shaped recovery if it was wedged in their backside. Below is the
> 4 week MA of initial claims AFTER the official end of the 1982 recession
> (which was a V shaped recovery, and a smaller labor pool). As you
> can see, even 6 months after the recession ended, the numbers were
> still just under 500,000.
>
> 1982-11-06 626250
> 1982-11-13 612000
> 1982-11-20 600500
> 1982-11-27 594250
> 1982-12-04 586250
> 1982-12-11 569750
> 1982-12-18 554500
> 1982-12-25 523750
> 1983-01-01 518000
> 1983-01-08 512250
> 1983-01-15 503000
> 1983-01-22 500500
> 1983-01-29 492750
> 1983-02-05 490500
> 1983-02-12 492250
> 1983-02-19 494250
> 1983-02-26 488750
> 1983-03-05 487250
> 1983-03-12 484500
> 1983-03-19 480250
> 1983-03-26 480250
> 1983-04-02 479250
> 1983-04-09 484500
> 1983-04-16 495750
> 1983-04-23 497500
> 1983-04-30 497250
> 1983-05-07 496750
> 1983-05-14 484000
All the spin then comes from the commenters. And sometimes it's downright foolish, as with the "angling for a spot on CNBC" comment. Just look at the titles of the last few articles posted by Bespoke (they're listed in the right hand column above, underneath the ads). The articles cut both ways. You want a negative chart, take a look at "Percentage of Stocks Above 50-Day Moving Average," or "S&P 500 Priced in Gold."
I know, the statistics you don't like aren't "facts," they're fabrications. OK. For myself, I appreciate these posts, they are informative, completely balanced, and it's fun to read the spinners' comments. Helps remind me of why EMT is a weak theory, since it is based on all investors acting rationally all of the time. Obviously, they don't.
Do you think this statement (from Bespoke) is accurate:
"...it's hard to argue that things aren't at least improving."
If you do, great. Personally, I think it's quite EASY to argue that when there are still massive net job losses occurring, things are not "improving". Let me ask you a question: Let's say you have $100 on Sunday, lose $20 on Monday and then lose another $10 on Tuesday... Did things "improve" between Monday and Tuesday?
On Nov 05 07:50 PM David Van Knapp wrote:
> Several times a week, Bespoke posts a simple article like this one,
> including a simple chart or table with the following amazing characteristic:
> It is always based on verifiable statistics and facts. Sometimes
> (as here) they offer a brief opinion or interpretation, other times
> they just present the chart.
>
> All the spin then comes from the commenters. And sometimes it's downright
> foolish, as with the "angling for a spot on CNBC" comment. Just look
> at the titles of the last few articles posted by Bespoke (they're
> listed in the right hand column above, underneath the ads). The articles
> cut both ways. You want a negative chart, take a look at "Percentage
> of Stocks Above 50-Day Moving Average," or "S&P 500 Priced in
> Gold."
>
> I know, the statistics you don't like aren't "facts," they're fabrications.
> OK. For myself, I appreciate these posts, they are informative, completely
> balanced, and it's fun to read the spinners' comments. Helps remind
> me of why EMT is a weak theory, since it is based on all investors
> acting rationally all of the time. Obviously, they don't.
"For the next hour we will be celebrating Dow 10,000, then we will talk about all our new books !"
Brilliant !
2. Things aren't improving? Unemployment isn't the only thing out there. It is as if the bears completely ignore every other metric signalling recovery. It is always "different this time". It was different all the other times, too, but it is still the same. The things we see improving in the economy were the same things that improved after almost every recession ended and the things that are getting less bad are also the same things that got less bad (before they got better) at the end of almost every other recession.
3. I don't know how you could have missed my 50 other posts, but inventories will force employers to hire. They are falling at the rate of around $15 billion/month (how many people do you think it takes to produce $15 billion/month in goods?). If you don't understand how that can be, let me explain. Starting last fall, businesses cut labor FAR greater than the economy warrented. As a result, production plummeted much faster than consumption. Then the government added stimulus dollars to the mix to keep consumption greater than production. Is that fake? Not really - consumption is still much less than it was 2 years ago. Stimulus isn't keeping consumption at an "artificial high" - it is keeping it from plunging into the abyss of depression. But, as I said before, it is also clearing inventories and forcing companies to hire again. As companies hire, in theory anyway, the government should start pulling stimulus dollars as people start making money from their new jobs (although I doubt the government will pull stimulus in time). It isn't that complicated. It is how recessions always resolve themselves to one degree or another.
Honestly, you can handwave all you want about how this is fake, but the money that people who followed sound investment logic have made is real and the money that people who have been calling this rally/recovery fake have failed to make (or even lost if playing the short side) is also real.
We've been through this before, and I actually agree to an extent with your longer term bearish economic outlook. I had a longer term bearish outlook on things as early as 2004, but that didn't stop the economy from growing between 2004 and 2007, nor did it stop shareholders from making money.
The problem with most people who think the way you do, is that you usually capitulate at the top. Things are going to get better still. That 3.5% GDP rise you saw for the 3rd quarter will be small compared to the next two quarters. At some point (sooner than you thing), even the most ridiculous bear metrics (like unemployment) will turn positive and you will have nothing left to stand on. You can be the type of bear who always sees doom on the horizon and sits on the sidelines for the rest of his life, or you can be the kind of bear who turns into a bull at the top. Either way, the kind of person who is a bear right now will never be able to make money investing as far as I can tell.
On Nov 06 07:24 AM logicalthought wrote:
> Do you think this statement (from Bespoke) is accurate:
> "...it's hard to argue that things aren't at least improving." <br/>
>
> If you do, great. Personally, I think it's quite EASY to argue that
> when there are still massive net job losses occurring, things are
> not "improving". Let me ask you a question: Let's say you have $100
> on Sunday, lose $20 on Monday and then lose another $10 on Tuesday...
> Did things "improve" between Monday and Tuesday?
See at the top where it says "seasonally adjusted"?
On Nov 05 07:06 PM logicalthought wrote:
> You can't make an apples-to-apples comparison, because in 2002 the
> BLS started seasonally adjusting the weekly claims data.
Well, you need to work a bit on your perception. As of this moment (11:25 AM on 11/6), I'm up approximately 100% YTD and have compounded approximately 30%/year for the past five years. I didn't initially get short until the S&P hit just under 1090 and thus am doing okay there (despite having recently added to the positions), but made most of the money on the long side in microcap stocks that weren't leveraged to the overall economy. Rather than going back and forth on the data (which can be read either my way or your way), I will very simply lay out my perception of things:
The current economic problems were caused by a massive amount of debt, and until that debt is either worked off or vaporized, this economy can sustainably go nowhere. So, even when the firings dry up to a level of employment that's compatible with greatly reduced levels of revenue, it will be several years before revenue is able to pick up to the point where significant hiring will be required. You, on the other hand, seem to think that an improved economy (rather than one that just "flatlines at the current crappy levels") is right around the corner. I think you're wrong, but if I see some real technical strength in this market, I will be happy to cover my shorts and try again from a higher level... Don't worry, there's no danger of my "going long just at the wrong time", as I'm well aware of how many people were crushed that way in the early 1930s.
On Nov 06 10:44 AM thiazole wrote:
> 1. The labor pool was substantially smaller in 1982 than now. In
> fact, the labor pool has grown by 36% since then. Are our initial
> claims data 36% higher (ie 680,000 is 36% larger than 500,000)?
> Nope! The fact that the numbers are still similar in spite of how
> much larger the labor pool has become tells us that labor conditions
> were actually quite a bit worse at the end of that recession then
> they are right now. Also, that was a back to back recession (another
> in 1980) so by the end of 1982, they were pretty much 3 years into
> a terrible labor market, so you can be assured that more benefits
> were expiring back then than now.
>
> 2. Things aren't improving? Unemployment isn't the only thing out
> there. It is as if the bears completely ignore every other metric
> signalling recovery. It is always "different this time". It was
> different all the other times, too, but it is still the same. The
> things we see improving in the economy were the same things that
> improved after almost every recession ended and the things that are
> getting less bad are also the same things that got less bad (before
> they got better) at the end of almost every other recession.
>
> 3. I don't know how you could have missed my 50 other posts, but
> inventories will force employers to hire. They are falling at the
> rate of around $15 billion/month (how many people do you think it
> takes to produce $15 billion/month in goods?). If you don't understand
> how that can be, let me explain. Starting last fall, businesses
> cut labor FAR greater than the economy warrented. As a result, production
> plummeted much faster than consumption. Then the government added
> stimulus dollars to the mix to keep consumption greater than production.
> Is that fake? Not really - consumption is still much less than it
> was 2 years ago. Stimulus isn't keeping consumption at an "artificial
> high" - it is keeping it from plunging into the abyss of depression.
> But, as I said before, it is also clearing inventories and forcing
> companies to hire again. As companies hire, in theory anyway, the
> government should start pulling stimulus dollars as people start
> making money from their new jobs (although I doubt the government
> will pull stimulus in time). It isn't that complicated. It is how
> recessions always resolve themselves to one degree or another.
>
>
> Honestly, you can handwave all you want about how this is fake, but
> the money that people who followed sound investment logic have made
> is real and the money that people who have been calling this rally/recovery
> fake have failed to make (or even lost if playing the short side)
> is also real.
>
> We've been through this before, and I actually agree to an extent
> with your longer term bearish economic outlook. I had a longer term
> bearish outlook on things as early as 2004, but that didn't stop
> the economy from growing between 2004 and 2007, nor did it stop shareholders
> from making money.
>
> The problem with most people who think the way you do, is that you
> usually capitulate at the top. Things are going to get better still.
> That 3.5% GDP rise you saw for the 3rd quarter will be small compared
> to the next two quarters. At some point (sooner than you thing),
> even the most ridiculous bear metrics (like unemployment) will turn
> positive and you will have nothing left to stand on. You can be
> the type of bear who always sees doom on the horizon and sits on
> the sidelines for the rest of his life, or you can be the kind of
> bear who turns into a bull at the top. Either way, the kind of person
> who is a bear right now will never be able to make money investing
> as far as I can tell.
>
> On Nov 06 07:24 AM logicalthought wrote:
"Thiazole: I'm not looking for just a 10% correction. I'm looking for the S&P to head back into the 600s, if not lower. I think we're going to see a 10x to 12x multiple as soon as people realize that S&P GAAP earnings will be stalled in the $45-$50 range for at least the next three years."
seekingalpha.com/user/...
Again, you aren't going to get that kind of correction this year (and will probably never get it in nominal terms, but that is a debate we already had).
On Nov 06 11:33 AM logicalthought wrote:
> >> Either way, the kind of person who is a bear right now will never
> be able to make money investing as far as I can tell.<<
>
> Well, you need to work a bit on your perception. As of this moment
> (11:25 AM on 11/6), I'm up approximately 100% YTD and have compounded
> approximately 30%/year for the past five years. I didn't initially
> get short until the S&P hit just under 1090 and thus am doing
> okay there (despite having recently added to the positions), but
> made most of the money on the long side in microcap stocks that weren't
> leveraged to the overall economy. Rather than going back and forth
> on the data (which can be read either my way or your way), I will
> very simply lay out my perception of things:
>
> The current economic problems were caused by a massive amount of
> debt, and until that debt is either worked off or vaporized, this
> economy can sustainably go nowhere. So, even when the firings dry
> up to a level of employment that's compatible with greatly reduced
> levels of revenue, it will be several years before revenue is able
> to pick up to the point where significant hiring will be required.
> You, on the other hand, seem to think that an improved economy (rather
> than one that just "flatlines at the current crappy levels") is right
> around the corner. I think you're wrong, but if I see some real technical
> strength in this market, I will be happy to cover my shorts and try
> again from a higher level... Don't worry, there's no danger of my
> "going long just at the wrong time", as I'm well aware of how many
> people were crushed that way in the early 1930s.