U.S. Jobs Propaganda Gets More Desperate [View article]
Jeff --If you want to resolve this apparent discrepancy, you can look at actual historic data, not the monthly surveys. We get information from state employment records. It shows the actual number of jobs created as well as how many come from new businesses and from existing businesses.
The data can be trusted, since no one would pay unemployment premiums on "phantom jobs." Even in bad times the economy generates 2 million new jobs each month. It does not offset the 2.5 million that are lost.
If you are interested, you can check out something I wrote about the last recession, where we can now see all of the job creation data: oldprof.typepad.com/a_...
This article is a great example of focusing on data and consistent use of your methods, rather than forming an impression about companies and products.
"A little inflation would be good for the economy and good for equities," Jeff Miller asserts. Core inflation is close to zero, and Bernanke is handling the money supply just fine. "Understanding inflation is now the single biggest challenge for investors," Miller writes. "There is a lot at stake." [View news story]
This is pretty funny! Most of the questions and comments are covered in the article itself. But why bother to read anything if your mind is already made up?
Meanwhile, those who are really interested are welcome to engage in discussion either on my blog, or on the SA article.
I would be happy to welcome some new readers and people willing to discuss issues on the merits.
ISM Index: 'New Normal' Is a No Show [View article]
Does it matter who I am? Or who you are? I thought this was an exchange of ideas. Either you are able to figure out what is already in the market -- or you are not.
It is a simple and valid question, and it has nothing to do with who we are.
If you want to make another non-response, you have the last word. Alternatively, if you have a substantive idea, perhaps we can add some light for the Seeking Alpha readers.
The Connection Between Low Volume and High Frequency Trading [View article]
EconomicJoker -- I did not call you naive. I spoke about a theory, not a person, so why take the comment personally? Since you are anonymous, I do not even know who is "rebuking" me? :)
You misquoted me. I specifically said that I was going back to the last recession so that we could look at actual data. The data cited are from 2001, not this year.
We do not yet have state employment data for the last two quarters. When we finally get the data I think we will see job losses running at 30 million/year, even larger than you suggest, and new jobs created running at 24 million/year.
I am curious about why you think state unemployment records are false.
Weighing The Week Ahead: Will Q3 Earnings Disappoint? [View article]
Stanley -- As you seem to do in all of your comments on my articles, you are writing without first reading. You obviously have an agenda, so why not just write an article and let everyone who is interested discuss it with you?
Since I am going to have a few more articles on the election, I am going to use your totally baseless assertion as a vehicle for some elaboration.
I am a long-standing advocate of political agnosticism when it comes to investing. I just entered "politically agnostic" into Google and my blog came up as the #3 entry, right after two dictionaries.
To accomplish this objective, I cite sources based on their expertise. If you look at their acknowledged political preferences, you will find people of nearly all political persuasions.
The only clear-cut political preference I have acknowledged is favoring compromise to solve problems. I think that extremists are making everything worse.
I have also admitted to voting for former Illinois governors of both parties who are now in prison! It seemed like a good idea at the time:) In both cases it related to their stance on education, an important issue for me. Not only am I a former educator, but I serve on the Citizens Financial Advisory Committee for one of the largest and fastest growing school districts in the state. It has provided first-hand experience on the budget challenges from the recession. This is, obviously, a non-partisan group as well.
I strongly suggest that readers double check the section where I discuss the determination of "good" as market-friendly. I let the market inform me about what fits the bill.
Jeff Nielson -- The data from state employment offices is regarded as solid by all except the most extreme anti-government types. These are required registrations and no employer would voluntarily pay premiums for "phantom jobs."
The use of accurate data is the starting point for analysis. A problem with the work of those criticizing the BLS is that they never go back to compare their own assertions with the actual results from the state data.
It is my hope that you and other critics would learn several things from the data -- 1) The B/D adjustment that you criticize is much less important than the imputation step -- that is where most of the job creation shows up. I don't think you have ever written about that aspect of the issue.
2) Those who assert there is no job creation are mistaken.
It is true that the BLS goes back and revises earlier estimates when they finally get the state data. That is to their credit.
By comparison, none of the BLS critics does the same. I think that SA readers are smart enough to see the difference.
BTW -- I am happy to engage in discussion, but only if you dial down the rhetoric and stick to the facts.
Weighing The Week Ahead: Entering A Season Of Fear? [View article]
Stanley ---
You seem to have a message in mind which you write in the comments whether it pertains to my article or not. You are making some sweeping statements about investment professionals and what they think and their track records and including me in that group.
For the record: I do not have a disdain for individual investors. I try to help them. I do this by taking the time to write down the best of the information I found during the week, the most recent results from some proprietary models, the key things to watch for, and a few of my own conclusions. Since it is working well for me, I hope it does the same for others.
I am not a defender of the "industry" and (unlike you) I have never worked for a big firm. My experience started with Chicago options traders who always had their own money at stake. I still have that personal touch. I design a program for each new client and only after an interview to determine suitability. If a client needs something that I don't offer, I say so. I do not push products to get a higher fee.
I do not make big sweeping market calls like you do. I certainly don't use the a Fibonacci number to determine when the next correction will come, since I believe that events matter. I don't think you can predict the market without paying any attention to fundamentals.
Perhaps your methods work just fine for you. There are many ways to succeed as an investor and as a trader. All I am saying is that these approaches do not make sense to me.
I saw you on CNBC a short time ago. When I saw that it was you, I turned off that mute button and dialed back the TIVO to watch. That is high praise in our office! The gist was that you see a 15-25% correction coming in a few weeks (the interview was on 9/27), a European collapse with the Euro maybe going to parity, a collapse in commodity prices. Brian tried to pin you down on how low and what the timing was and you said something about "support levels."
Brian said you were bullish back in March, so I went back and watched that interview as well. You didn't like Apple (then about 585) since retail investors could only buy 3 or 4 shares, but you said that the fundamentals were good. You expected a lower market but said that it could go higher first.
I am putting in the links for both interviews. (There are lots of others as well).
To summarize, I suggest that if you want to write about how terrible investment managers are, their arrogance, and the poor track records -- well - -just write an article and post it! It is not appropriate to do so and start it off with your amazement at "Jeff and other pundits."
Does Another Cruel Summer Lie Ahead For Stocks? [View article]
Plenty to think about here, and the attention of markets to more QE is quite accurate.
This said, some other points deserve more consideration - 1) I think you over-emphasize the Fed's attention to the stock market and to political pressure. They pay more attention to the economy, with the market relevant only via wealth effect. If you are going to maintain this, you should be able to find evidence from the many years of FOMC transcripts now available. I can't.
2) Here is a key quotation on the link between monetary policy and commodity prices: "... the arguments linking the run-up in commodity prices to the stance of U.S. monetary policy do not seem to hold up to close scrutiny." For details see Janet Yellen's speech to the Economic Club of New York last year. http://1.usa.gov/HIAKYj
3) And finally, even if you believe (incorrectly in my view) that monetary policy causes oil price spikes, the Fed does not and they make the decisions.
For these reasons I see the Fed as driven by attention to economic data, and quite possibly doing too little. If more stimulus is needed, Bernanke and company are not going to be intimidated by politicians.
Even if my assessment is correct, however, you may be right about the market interpretation.
Weighing The Week Ahead: Time To Reconsider The Upside For Stocks? [View article]
Trader2708 -- It is a mistake to pigeonhole people based on little information. My theme was inspired by the Barron's cover, for example, and they certainly do not represent the perma- bull camp.
Meanwhile, a little research on your part would show that I was bearish in early October and neutral in November. I report this every week.
Finally, I have a list of objective indicators that are better than emotion on this subject. Following them has been working pretty well.
So let's be fair with each other and the data, OK?
ISM Index: 'New Normal' Is a No Show [View article]
I regularly read a wide range of viewpoints, and recommend it to all.
U.S. Jobs Propaganda Gets More Desperate [View article]
The data can be trusted, since no one would pay unemployment premiums on "phantom jobs." Even in bad times the economy generates 2 million new jobs each month. It does not offset the 2.5 million that are lost.
If you are interested, you can check out something I wrote about the last recession, where we can now see all of the job creation data: oldprof.typepad.com/a_...
I hope this is helpful.
How RIMM Today Mirrors Oracle 2009 [View article]
"A little inflation would be good for the economy and good for equities," Jeff Miller asserts. Core inflation is close to zero, and Bernanke is handling the money supply just fine. "Understanding inflation is now the single biggest challenge for investors," Miller writes. "There is a lot at stake." [View news story]
Meanwhile, those who are really interested are welcome to engage in discussion either on my blog, or on the SA article.
I would be happy to welcome some new readers and people willing to discuss issues on the merits.
Jeff
ISM Index: 'New Normal' Is a No Show [View article]
It is a simple and valid question, and it has nothing to do with who we are.
If you want to make another non-response, you have the last word. Alternatively, if you have a substantive idea, perhaps we can add some light for the Seeking Alpha readers.
ISM Index: 'New Normal' Is a No Show [View article]
If you think this is a rigged game, why bother to comment here?
The Connection Between Low Volume and High Frequency Trading [View article]
U.S. Jobs Propaganda Gets More Desperate [View article]
You misquoted me. I specifically said that I was going back to the last recession so that we could look at actual data. The data cited are from 2001, not this year.
We do not yet have state employment data for the last two quarters. When we finally get the data I think we will see job losses running at 30 million/year, even larger than you suggest, and new jobs created running at 24 million/year.
I am curious about why you think state unemployment records are false.
ISM Index: 'New Normal' Is a No Show [View article]
Why do you believe that your data are better than his? Why shouldn't I read everyone and decide?
And why engage in name-calling?
Weighing The Week Ahead: Will Q3 Earnings Disappoint? [View article]
Since I am going to have a few more articles on the election, I am going to use your totally baseless assertion as a vehicle for some elaboration.
I am a long-standing advocate of political agnosticism when it comes to investing. I just entered "politically agnostic" into Google and my blog came up as the #3 entry, right after two dictionaries.
To accomplish this objective, I cite sources based on their expertise. If you look at their acknowledged political preferences, you will find people of nearly all political persuasions.
The only clear-cut political preference I have acknowledged is favoring compromise to solve problems. I think that extremists are making everything worse.
I have also admitted to voting for former Illinois governors of both parties who are now in prison! It seemed like a good idea at the time:) In both cases it related to their stance on education, an important issue for me. Not only am I a former educator, but I serve on the Citizens Financial Advisory Committee for one of the largest and fastest growing school districts in the state. It has provided first-hand experience on the budget challenges from the recession. This is, obviously, a non-partisan group as well.
I strongly suggest that readers double check the section where I discuss the determination of "good" as market-friendly. I let the market inform me about what fits the bill.
Jeff
Understanding Employment Statistics [View article]
The use of accurate data is the starting point for analysis. A problem with the work of those criticizing the BLS is that they never go back to compare their own assertions with the actual results from the state data.
It is my hope that you and other critics would learn several things from the data --
1) The B/D adjustment that you criticize is much less important than the imputation step -- that is where most of the job creation shows up. I don't think you have ever written about that aspect of the issue.
2) Those who assert there is no job creation are mistaken.
It is true that the BLS goes back and revises earlier estimates when they finally get the state data. That is to their credit.
By comparison, none of the BLS critics does the same. I think that SA readers are smart enough to see the difference.
BTW -- I am happy to engage in discussion, but only if you dial down the rhetoric and stick to the facts.
Jeff
Individual Investors! Get Your Share Of Profits From The Fed [View article]
Your comment aptly demonstrates all of the problems I outline in the article, so thanks for joining in!
Jeff
Weighing The Week Ahead: Entering A Season Of Fear? [View article]
You seem to have a message in mind which you write in the comments whether it pertains to my article or not. You are making some sweeping statements about investment professionals and what they think and their track records and including me in that group.
For the record: I do not have a disdain for individual investors. I try to help them. I do this by taking the time to write down the best of the information I found during the week, the most recent results from some proprietary models, the key things to watch for, and a few of my own conclusions. Since it is working well for me, I hope it does the same for others.
I am not a defender of the "industry" and (unlike you) I have never worked for a big firm. My experience started with Chicago options traders who always had their own money at stake. I still have that personal touch. I design a program for each new client and only after an interview to determine suitability. If a client needs something that I don't offer, I say so. I do not push products to get a higher fee.
I do not make big sweeping market calls like you do. I certainly don't use the a Fibonacci number to determine when the next correction will come, since I believe that events matter. I don't think you can predict the market without paying any attention to fundamentals.
Perhaps your methods work just fine for you. There are many ways to succeed as an investor and as a trader. All I am saying is that these approaches do not make sense to me.
I saw you on CNBC a short time ago. When I saw that it was you, I turned off that mute button and dialed back the TIVO to watch. That is high praise in our office! The gist was that you see a 15-25% correction coming in a few weeks (the interview was on 9/27), a European collapse with the Euro maybe going to parity, a collapse in commodity prices. Brian tried to pin you down on how low and what the timing was and you said something about "support levels."
Brian said you were bullish back in March, so I went back and watched that interview as well. You didn't like Apple (then about 585) since retail investors could only buy 3 or 4 shares, but you said that the fundamentals were good. You expected a lower market but said that it could go higher first.
I am putting in the links for both interviews. (There are lots of others as well).
To summarize, I suggest that if you want to write about how terrible investment managers are, their arrogance, and the poor track records -- well - -just write an article and post it! It is not appropriate to do so and start it off with your amazement at "Jeff and other pundits."
http://bit.ly/Ro0EBs
http://bit.ly/QNUbBX
I'll look forward to seeing you again on CNBC. You are very articulate and effective in your presentation.
Jeff
Does Another Cruel Summer Lie Ahead For Stocks? [View article]
This said, some other points deserve more consideration -
1) I think you over-emphasize the Fed's attention to the stock market and to political pressure. They pay more attention to the economy, with the market relevant only via wealth effect. If you are going to maintain this, you should be able to find evidence from the many years of FOMC transcripts now available. I can't.
2) Here is a key quotation on the link between monetary policy and commodity prices: "... the arguments linking the run-up in commodity prices to the stance of U.S. monetary policy do not seem to hold up to close scrutiny." For details see Janet Yellen's speech to the Economic Club of New York last year. http://1.usa.gov/HIAKYj
3) And finally, even if you believe (incorrectly in my view) that monetary policy causes oil price spikes, the Fed does not and they make the decisions.
For these reasons I see the Fed as driven by attention to economic data, and quite possibly doing too little. If more stimulus is needed, Bernanke and company are not going to be intimidated by politicians.
Even if my assessment is correct, however, you may be right about the market interpretation.
Thanks for your provocative argument.
Weighing The Week Ahead: Time To Reconsider The Upside For Stocks? [View article]
Meanwhile, a little research on your part would show that I was bearish in early October and neutral in November. I report this every week.
Finally, I have a list of objective indicators that are better than emotion on this subject. Following them has been working pretty well.
So let's be fair with each other and the data, OK?
Jeff