Do you think Dow 18,000 was the bottom?

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toocold Unemployment rates have fallen to 13.3%, much lower than the expected 19.8%. Futures are naturally up this morning. The only way 18k will be achieved is if there is a severe covid crisis 2nd wave and states not being prepared for it (which seems unlikely). https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN23C0E9

Only Wall Street could applaud 13% unemployment.

I wonder if it will be revised.

[tdv2]

It seems the market is less concerned with the absolute number but more with the rate of change to the upside. The opposite was true a couple of months ago.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Only Wall Street could applaud 13% unemployment. I wonder if it will be revised.

The numbers make little sense. They do not jibe at all with continuing claims, for example, and either half of the 40+MM (45?) initial claims were fraudulent or the BLS numbers are jacked.

[easysurfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Only Wall Street could applaud 13% unemployment. I wonder if it will be revised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdv2 It seems the market is less concerned with the absolute number but more with the rate of change to the upside. The opposite was true a couple of months ago.

Everything is relative

[MRG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 The numbers make little sense. They do not jibe at all with continuing claims, for example, and either half of the 40+MM (45?) initial claims were fraudulent or the BLS numbers are jacked.

[emoji2957][emoji13][emoji857]

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 The numbers make little sense. They do not jibe at all with continuing claims, for example, and either half of the 40+MM (45?) initial claims were fraudulent or the BLS numbers are jacked.

Totally agree that the 13% unmployment doesn't make sense in relation to 40+m initial claims..... I'm betting that the BLS numbrs are jacked.

I wonder why.

[Beststash]

The search for something to be optimistic about seems like a normal reaction after these last few months. However.... the troubling thing for me is that there seems to be an effort to mask our real economic issues with an escape from reality. We go from crisis to crisis it seems as a way of doing business these last few years. I just can't get my head around this 21st century way of management. I'm glad I'm retired and maybe it just time for me to reduce my exposure to this madness.....(not in my DNA to ignore it) it's driving me bananas as my old boss used to say "Thank God I Drink"

[gerntz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Only Wall Street could applaud 13% unemployment. I wonder if it will be revised.

It bets on the future, not today. Trend is right.

Yes, maybe it will be 12%.

[gerntz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdv2 It seems the market is less concerned with the absolute number but more with the rate of change to the upside. The opposite was true a couple of months ago.

Bingo.

[easysurfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Totally agree that the 13% unmployment doesn't make sense in relation to 40+m initial claims..... I'm betting that the BLS numbrs are jacked. I wonder why.

My thoughts too, but was too cautious to say .

[gerntz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Totally agree that the 13% unmployment doesn't make sense in relation to 40+m initial claims..... I'm betting that the BLS numbrs are jacked. I wonder why.

Please enlighten me. Thanks.

[gerntz]

Do you think 29400 DOW is top? Or will this rally surpass that?

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerntz Please enlighten me. Thanks.

Do some reading. Zero hedge has some interesting write ups this morning. Basically bls has a wonky process that they try to compensate for with statistical adjustments. The wonky process and the models are both larger than usual sources of error

I would guess that the real unemployment number is closer to 17 to 20 percent.

[gerntz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Do some reading. Zero hedge has some interesting write ups this morning. Basically bls has a wonky process that they try to compensate for with statistical adjustments. The wonky process and the models are both larger than usual sources of error I would guess that the real unemployment number is closer to 17 to 20 percent.

I've never heard of an unemployment adjustment of even 1%, much less 4-7%. I'll believe the markets.

[Helen]

This makes my head spin:


"Coronavirus (COVID-19) Impact on May 2020 Establishment and Household Survey Data

Data collection for both surveys was affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. In the establishment survey, approximately one-fifth of the data is collected at four regional data collection centers. Although these centers were closed, about three-quarters of the interviewers at these centers worked remotely to collect data by telephone. Additionally, BLS encouraged businesses to report electronically. The collection rate for the establishment survey in May was 69 percent, slightly lower than collection rates prior to the pandemic. The household survey is generally collected through inperson and telephone interviews, but personal interviews were not conducted for the safety of interviewers and respondents. The household survey response rate, at 67 percent, was about 15 percentage points lower than in months prior to the pandemic.

In the establishment survey, workers who are paid by their employer for all or any part of the pay period including the 12th of the month are counted as employed, even if they were not actually at their jobs. Workers who are temporarily or permanently absent from their jobs and are not being paid are not counted as employed, even if they are continuing to receive benefits.

The estimation methods used in the establishment survey were the same for May as they were for April. However, after further research, BLS extended the modifications that were made to the April birth-death model back to March, which accounted for a portion of the revision to March data. For more information, see http://www.bls.gov/cps/employment-si...q-may-2020.pdf .

In the household survey, individuals are classified as employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force based on their answers to a series of questions about their activities during the survey reference week (May 10th through May 16th). Workers who indicate they were not working during the entire survey reference week and expect to be recalled to their jobs should be classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. In May, a large number of persons were classified as unemployed on temporary layoff.

However, there was also a large number of workers who were classified as employed but absent from work. As was the case in March and April, household survey interviewers were instructed to classify employed persons absent from work due to coronavirus-related business closures as unemployed on temporary layoff. However, it is apparent that not all such workers were so classified. BLS and the Census Bureau are investigating why this misclassification error continues to occur and are taking additional steps to address the issue.

If the workers who were recorded as employed but absent from work due to “other reasons” (over and above the number absent for other reasons in a typical May) had been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff, the overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported (on a not seasonally adjusted basis). However, according to usual practice, the data from the household survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain data integrity, no ad hoc actions are taken to reclassify survey responses.

More information is available at http://www.bls.gov/cps/employment-si...q-may-2020.pdf . "



https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

[Dash man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toocold The only way 18k will be achieved is if there is a severe covid crisis 2nd wave and states not being prepared for it (which seems unlikely).

Dangerous words. There are many things that could bring the market down! Don’t jinx this!

[MichaelB]

Bill McBride runs the blog “Calculated Risk” and provides very good and easy to understand analysis of major data releases. It’s a great resource for people that don’t have a financial or economics background and want to know what some of this data means.

Here’s his take on the BLS announcement https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2...nt-report.html

[Montecfo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Do some reading. Zero hedge has some interesting write ups this morning. Basically bls has a wonky process that they try to compensate for with statistical adjustments. The wonky process and the models are both larger than usual sources of error I would guess that the real unemployment number is closer to 17 to 20 percent.

These are estimates which is why they are able to get them out so quickly. Hand-wringing about the birth/death adjustments are certainly nothing new. The CV has certainly raised challenges to estimation, since you have multiple types of employed people who are nonetheless not working.

The "real" number is never known but we can all guess.

[mckittri2000]

The markets numbers are base on future projections, not current numbers only. The numbers are positive so the market views things are on the rebound. Any number of things can happen in the near future to bring it down and vice versa to keep it going up. Seems like a lot of people on this board are very pessimistic.

[street]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mckittri2000 The markets numbers are base on future projections, not current numbers only. The numbers are positive so the market views things are on the rebound. Any number of things can happen in the near future to bring it down and vice versa to keep it going up. Seems like a lot of people on this board are very pessimistic.

I couldn't agree with you more! That is exactly how the market numbers works and thanks for bringing that to our attention.
I for one am an optimist and I see boom and even if gloom I try to see the best in everything.
Thank You.