The Other, Unmentioned Consumer Index
With all eyes glued to the Michigan numbers yesterday which were supposed to start another recursive market spike, most pundits failed to notice the much less cheerful ABC consumer comfort index which was virtually unchanged, and in fact the buying climate assessment indicated a deterioration.
Here are the results, via Bloomberg:
U.S. overall consumer confidence rose last week, according to an ABC News poll released Tuesday. The consumer comfort index rose one point to -45 in the week ended Aug. 23, from -46 a week earlier.
According to the survey, 8% of respondents expressed confidence in the economy, up from 7% the week before. Also, 49% of those polled said their own finances were in good standing, up from 48% in the prior week. In assessing the buying climate, 25% of respondents said it was good, down from 26% a week earlier.
The consumer comfort index was based on a random survey of 1,000 respondents nationwide ended Aug. 23. The index measures typical Americans' confidence in three areas: the national economy, their own finances, and their willingness to spend money, according to the report.
Here is the definition of the ABC Consumer Comfort index:
Declining levels of consumer comfort usually accompany any fall in income and wages and precede drops in consumer spending. A low or falling ABC Consumer Comfort value is considered an early indicator of an economic downturn. As a result, investors, retailers and traders alike all watch the figure for insight into the general health of the economy.
Note: The index incorporates the most recent week's data with the results of the past three weeks, yielding a rolling four week average. Results are calculated as the difference in percent of positive and negative numbers.
h/t Joe
(8 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 08:47
#48619
Green shoots!!!
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:43
#48753
Gangrene Shoots
think Requiem for a Dream at the end.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 08:48
#48622
Seems like a bit of a stretch...tit for tat, I guess
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 08:49
#48623
ABC as in "Already Been Chewed."
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 08:50
#48625
hahahahahahhahah
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:14
#48644
Always
Be
Consuming
yours truly,
Rahm
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 08:51
#48630
What is the sampling error? 20%?
I still say when Bernanke said that he say green shoots, he actually said he saw "Greenschutz".
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:57
#48683
That's what I was going to ask. My guess is that there was no change and the uptick could be explained by sampling error..then again I'm generally pessimistic about all this.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 13:01
#48903
the change is statistically insignificant....
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 08:54
#48633
If the media outlets don't mention the bad news it means the bad news doesn't exist. All I can see in the article title is "Unicorns Eat AIG stock, Crap Out Debt Jubilee."
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 08:54
#48635
Hopefully everyone saw that social security will be broke in 2 years and they are finally starting to save.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:01
#48638
TD, you gotta stop cherry picking the data to bolster the bearish case. I remember no mention of this consumer index when the Michigan survey came out worse than expected for the past two months. This is a consistent drag on the credibility of this site: just as the cheerleaders on CNBC will twist all the negative data until it fits their Bull [sic] story, ZH tends to go overboard in trying to dismantle any piece of positive news that appears.
Just take it for what it is - a blip, which we've seen before, and which can be followed by more declines. On the other hand, if and when the blips line up to show a consistent positive trend, show the willingness to admit as much.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:15
#48646
You must be new around here...
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:30
#48655
It is all about bringing balance to the force. I can easily go anywhere else for the good news; in fact I can tune to to Mellisa Francis' horseface on CNBC to hear her say "the consumer doesn't HAVE to pay off his debt!" and get all the good news I can stomach.
But I come here for the facts. And unfortunately I don't think ZH will have to switch their fact-based bias from "bearish" to "bullish" any time soon.
PS TD reported both consumer confidence indeces, so I don't see the problem.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:23
#48656
While i agree that there should be balance in presenting data so as to avoid becoming an echo chamber, i will point out that ZH has brought this index to the attention of its readers on a number of occasions over the last 3 months.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:31
#48666
"This is a consistent drag on the credibility of this site"
While you are certainly welcome to your opinion, there are plenty of people who read this site who understand that the Emperor wears no clothes while he reports sightings of green shoots. Market fundamentals belie a rather different state of affairs than what is commonly being reported.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:47
#48676
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/06/other-consumer-index-posts-major-market.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/abc-consumer-confidence-index-turns-lower-again
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:53
#48761
Doesn't that prove my point? Why only mention things when they are negative (you skipped a month when it briefly turned positive). If you take it upon yourself to report economic datapoints, report everything, and not just the instances where your editorial position is supported. Calculated Risk does a splendid job of it on the macro level. Things that you guys report here are remarkably useful, and I am an avid reader. But if the readers of this blog are as smart as they purport to be, they don't need the handholding of data selection to see the big picture.
EDIT: by way of example, this here http://www.zerohedge.com/article/august-consumer-sentiment-declines-632-66-august Michigan survey result, you seemed to like. The current one, not so much, so you posted the ABC data as a counterpoint. The Michigan survey is either good or it's not. If it's no good, then the report that showed a decline should be accompanied with the same dose of skepticism as the positive readings are.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 13:49
#48952
"The Michigan survey is either good or it's not"? And who is going to prove that? I've taken all government and media statistics with a grain of salt ever since the big numbers massage began: I only use them as a collective gauge on how Wall Street will use them to influence the markets and the public--not as a reality gauge. To do otherwise, is to be misinformed, IMO.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 16:33
#49225
we may have fornt running
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:06
#48640
Who cares about "the consumer"?
What we need is a ruling class of bankers controlling and leeching of a class of public servants. The ruling class can then lure the servant class members with promotions.
It is better to award one plebeian a 100% raise than giving 10% to ten of them. In the minds of the plebeians the mere thought of winning the lottery is worth much more than sustained, slow, and shared progress.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:12
#48643
The Stunning rise in the NEW HOME SALES seems we have missed the rally!!!
It seems that either the data is forged or I was wrong.
Shit happens. I lost a good amount on a bet. Where is the next stop on Dow. 10270 or some levels like that. Any helpon this front.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:24
#48659
SELL SELL SELL!
You're welcome.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:30
#48664
Home sales are seasonal. That is, families generally like to move during the summer to avoid pulling their kids out of school in the middle of the year. I think July is usually the best month. Denninger wrote about this the other day.
"
In other news July remains the last full month before school starts and spring and summer are always the strongest months for home sales.
The NAR is shameless. After David Lereah wrote not one but two books pumping real estate right into the top and managed to suck in millions of Americans (then crush them) you'd think that the NAR would learn.
You'd be wrong.
There has never been a year where seasonality doesn't matter to home sales, as any family with children will tell you - moving during the school year sucks and is avoided whenever possible.
Let's see if Yun is forced to do the "Yum Yum" on those words when September - December's numbers print. I wouldn't bet against that, given the delinquency numbers released yesterday."
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1359-Housing-Pumpers-Are-Out-In-Force.html
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 14:04
#48970
Here’s NAR’s latest game, to boost consumer ‘confidence’...or sales...?
Chris Martenson on 08/23/09 in House Sales and Mortgage Applications – Something Doesn’t Add Up, said a question had been bothering him, and that is:
… the apparent discrepancy I'd mentally noted between the happy-happy increase in existing home sales, as reported by the NAR last week, and what I remembered from the MBS mortgage application releases.
…Confounding things, the Mortgage Banker Association (MBA) application reports are notorious for changing their reporting methodology, most recently (during the past 3 weeks) dispensing with reporting of an absolute number in favor of a simple percentage change. Where, for example, the number used to change from 1000 to 1100, it is now only reported as having changed +10%.
After a few weeks, who can remember what +10%, -4%, -3%, +12% is supposed to mean? I certainly can't.
At any rate, this shift to a percentage basis altered a convention that went back several years. Now we only get to read the weekly percentage and yearly changes, without the confusing benefit of an absolute number to guide our perceptions. So for those without the time or the inclination to dig through the data, it is what it is.
For me? The only way to resolve this was to obtain all the base data, hand-enter it into a spreadsheet, and see what was up.
Well, this is what's up:
Where the NAR recently reported a gain of +5% in existing home sales for July09/July08, the reconstructed MBA report shows a -22% decline in purchase applications over the same period (in stark contrast to their misleading recent release, which spoke of a yr/yr gain, but was actually referring to a blended gain that included the highly volatile refi apps):
Where the MBA most recently said that purchase applications have been "trending up," I am at a loss to see the period of time to which they are referring. I've boxed in 2009 for reference, but it is difficult to make a case for "trending up" unless one decides to begin randomly at some point after March.
Note that the data I have is all seasonally adjusted and straight from the MBA, so I doubt we are referring to different data.
At any rate, I am simply not in a position to believe that purchase applications are down 22% yr/yr while total sales are up 5%+. This would imply that nearly a third of all national sales are cash-on-the-barrel.
Sorry. No way. Somebody here is lying.
Somebody Not At all Reliable. However, I will retain my judgments - for now.
http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/house-sales-and-mortgage-applications-something-doesnt-add/25714
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:34
#48668
hey spart, i have price targets for SPU09 at 1050, 1090 and 1125 levels for establishing short positions. time target of Sept. 16th (but don't rely strictly on time cycles for turning points) for 1125 level.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:24
#48660
One small thought, don't most people buy homes in the Summertime so you don't have to move in the cold and snow? Additionally, since (http//:seekingalpha.com/article/158231-cash-for-clunkers-is-taxable-income) isn't the firsttime buyer credit also taxable? That's a nasty little surprise from your friendly govt.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:35
#48669
thanks for explain the graphics and ad more commentaries
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:36
#48670
Neophiliac,
Twist the data? Do you actually come here and need data interpreted? Bolster the bearish case, heck! One of the factors I use in my own 'model', is craigslist. Pattern searching it shows unrelenting stress on that 70% that is suppose to start consuming so we can get back to business.
Huge solar arrays showing up cheap, because the house is being foreclosed, people not able to buy silver even at spot prices, the list is long, and pretty one-sided. This is leaving out the 'new' social security data as well. As well, the unemployed I know personally have more or less given up looking for work, as what little there is will not come close to paying their bills, and this is the bay area. Also, U-haul is an interesting way to gauge some things: if you are leaving the state of CA, a truck is quite expensive, if bringing one into CA, its quite cheap. The reason is that so many are leaving the state, U-haul is practically renting it for you if you bring it back in. As I see it, there are simply more negative data points than positive. MANY more.
I suppose it would look differently to me if I had taxpayer money given to me that I could use for my own discretionary needs. But if I did, and put out bulletins about what my thoughts were on the economy, would you believe me?
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 16:35
#49231
e silliness in junk stocks continues. What's a fair price for the Agency common
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:40
#48671
"With all eyes glued to the Michigan numbers yesterday"
Actually this was CB, mate, Michigan will be released on friday...
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:50
#48677
NEW HOME SALES- BUY BUY BUY!
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:53
#48681
What's with the ads for hooker/sugar daddy dating sites? The pictures make it hard to concentrate on macroeconomics...
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:02
#48687
Zero Hedge is much too optimistic
full of dreamers and idealists
You are part of the same system you rail against
You think you can 'hedge accordingly' You can't
You will not be saved by the arrogance of your intelligence
The die is cast
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:05
#48692
http://mhanson.com/archives/173
Dont trust the housing numbers you see.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 12:33
#48870
I'm having a hard time trusting ANY numbers! It's a shame, but you have to look at who's publishing the numbers and try to figure out if they are lying as much as they did in the past, or exponentially more! I know that the truth is scary, but I'd rather know the true and feel bad, than be lied to and be blindsided down the road.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:32
#48732
do not remember who: somebody measured the correlation of the old CCI against GDP six or seven years ago and found it to be ZERO; does anyone know if the two newer measures actually mean a damn thing?
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 13:11
#48912
the only data which count are hard numbers -
retail sales, tax receipts, sales tax receipts,
capacity utilization, capital flows, etc etc.
sentiment indices are for wiping your ass....
synthetic data such as gdp are to be viewed with
utmost suspicion...
and with all data statistical significance and
sampling error must be considered before ascribing
credibility to the numbers...
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 11:39
#48826
Home sales and prices will head down again shortly--seasonality, flood of fcs hitting the market. retreat of $8K tax credit.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 12:51
#48894
Neophiliac has it right. This site sucks cause all you guys do is point out how bad things are (at least you think) by data mining. Where are all the Regions Financial bears now. Same predictable posts, day after day. meanwhile you dummies are going broke selling into a 50%+ rally.
That doesn't even mention all the stupid Goldman/Fed/Treasury bashing.
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 13:15
#48919
both optimists and pessimists data mine....
just because someone is pessimistic doesn't mean
he is broke or selling into rally although that
is precisely the place in which to sell...
people can hold divergent views and behaviors
regarding fundamental economics and market
performance....
your time might be better spent getting a ged
than posting on econ/finance sites..
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 13:35
#48935
I just got my GED
on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 16:27
#49209
If new inventory was up it would actually mean that there's a and lending activity recovery.