You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.

The Other, Unmentioned Consumer Index

Tyler Durden's picture




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




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:47 | Link to Comment Rex Crotch
Rex Crotch's picture

Green shoots!!!

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 11:43 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:48 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:49 | Link to Comment crzyhun
crzyhun's picture

ABC as in "Already Been Chewed."

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:50 | Link to Comment Project Mayhem
Project Mayhem's picture

hahahahahahhahah

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:14 | Link to Comment Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh's picture

Always

Be

Consuming

 

yours truly,

Rahm

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:51 | Link to Comment Printfaster
Printfaster's picture

What is the sampling error?  20%?

I still say when Bernanke said that he say green shoots, he actually said he saw "Greenschutz".

 

 

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:57 | Link to Comment glenlloyd
glenlloyd's picture

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.

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 14:01 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:54 | Link to Comment TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

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."

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 09:54 | Link to Comment Fish Gone Bad
Fish Gone Bad's picture

Hopefully everyone saw that social security will be broke in 2 years and they are finally starting to save.

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:01 | Link to Comment Neophiliac
Neophiliac's picture

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.

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:15 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:30 | Link to Comment TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

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.

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:23 | Link to Comment lizzy36
lizzy36's picture

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.

 

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:31 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 11:53 | Link to Comment Neophiliac
Neophiliac's picture

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.

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 14:49 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

"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.

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 17:33 | Link to Comment zenith1
zenith1's picture

we may have fornt running

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:06 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:12 | Link to Comment Spartacus
Spartacus's picture

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.

 

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:24 | Link to Comment TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

SELL SELL SELL!

You're welcome.

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:30 | Link to Comment Project Mayhem
Project Mayhem's picture

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.

Resales have gained for four consecutive straight months, the longest streak of increases since 2004. "Momentum is building," said Lawrence Yun, NAR's chief economist.

"

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

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 15:04 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

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...

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:34 | Link to Comment flaxpin
flaxpin's picture

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.

 

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:24 | Link to Comment OldCodger
OldCodger's picture

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.

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:35 | Link to Comment Ed Cormack
Ed Cormack's picture

thanks for explain the graphics and ad more commentaries

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:36 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 17:35 | Link to Comment zenith1
zenith1's picture

e silliness in junk stocks continues. What's a fair price for the Agency common

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:40 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:50 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:53 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 11:02 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 11:05 | Link to Comment Oso
Oso's picture

http://mhanson.com/archives/173

 

Dont trust the housing numbers you see. 

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 13:33 | Link to Comment Argos
Argos's picture

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.

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 11:32 | Link to Comment solarsense
solarsense's picture

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?

Wed, 08/26/2009 - 14:11 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 12:39 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 13:51 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 14:15 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 14:35 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 08/26/2009 - 17:27 | Link to Comment zenith1
zenith1's picture

If new inventory was up it would actually mean that there's a and lending activity recovery.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!