This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Nonfarm payrolls should fall by 377,000 (But they won’t)

ilene's picture




 

Nonfarm payrolls should fall by 377,000 (But they won’t)

Courtesy of Lee Adler of the Wall Street Examiner

Let’s play “guess the nonfarm payrolls.” After all, our guess is as good as the conomists’, whose forecasts nicely fit a random distribution of hits and misses month in and month out.

My guess? The headline non farm payrolls number would be reported as a drop of 337,000 tomorrow if you believe the withholding tax data for the period covered by the survey. That would be a huge miss versus the consensus estimate of a gain of 201,000 according to Hizzoner the Mayor’s tout sheet. Rupert Hacker Murdoch’s rags are even more bullish, posting an expected gain of 210,000.

The number will be nowhere near a drop of 377,000, of course. It is an election year after all, and the February number that is the basis for the comparison will probably revised down so that the headlines aren’t screaming bad news. In addition, a big part of the reason my swag is that low has to do with the survey date. There was some weakness in early March withholding tax data that was solidly reversed late in the month. So if the number is weak, it’s probably a head fake. The withholding data was much stronger by the end of the month and if this continues April would be up huge.

I’m not a conomist, but given their record, my guess is as good as theirs, so I thought, let’s play “guess the number.” You can play along with me and place your bets accordingly. But, even assuming I’m right, which is unlikely, would a miss be bullish or bearish?

A small miss would probably be a non event. A big miss would most likely be bullish, because the players would probably start betting on more QE again. On the other hand, a beat would most likely be sold, because that would convince everybody that there really really won’t be any more QE. We’re at that stage of the game where bad economic news is bullish if it’s bad enough. Good economic news is bearish because the kids in the market playground know that it means no more candy from Dirty Old Ben.

So, how did I arrive at my wild guess?

I track the daily Federal withholding tax data for the Wall Street Examiner weekly Treasury Update. By comparing the year to year change in withholding for the survey period versus last year, adjusted for the change in wage levels, I can get an idea of the change in total employment for the month. The next trick is to convert that to a seasonally adjusted number and compare my seasonally fudged number to the seasonally adjusted number for February to get my headline number.

The government conducts its establishment survey to include the weekly payroll data for the week that includes the 12th calendar day of the month. Due to the fact that last year the 12th was on a Saturday, Houston, we had a problem. I assumed that the BLS would count that as part of the week before. If you compare that week with the same week this year, the rolling average weekly withholding for that week averaged about 1.1% higher than that week in 2011, as adjusted by the employment cost index. On that basis, nonfarm payrolls for March should be 1.1% higher than they were in March 2011. The calculation for the estimated not seasonally adjusted March payrolls was:

March 2011: 130,061,000 x 1.011 = 131,492,000.

The next step was to convert that to a seasonally adjusted guess. I backed out the SA factors for the last couple of years, and for March it has been 1.0066 times the NSA number. The calculation for the seasonally adjusted nonfarm payrolls would be:

131,492,000 x 1.0066 = 132,360,000

The February level reported last month was 132,697,000. That implies a drop of 337,000 from the February SA number. But the February number is certain to be revised, so there’s no way the BLS will report a negative number that big. Even so, if you believe that withholding taxes are a good measure of employment, then the number should be negative. Later in the month withholding taxes surged and turned strongly positive, but that should not have been included in that pay period.

In truth, I have no clue where this number will be. If the BLS uses data from the following week, they could conceivably come up with a gain, but it’s hard to see how it could reach the consensus conomist expectations of 201,000 to 210,000.

But then they have no clue either.

 

Stay up to date with the machinations of the Fed, Treasury, Primary Dealers and foreign central banks in the US market, along with regular updates of the US housing market, in the Fed Report in the Professional Edition, Money Liquidity, and Real Estate Package. Don't miss another day. Get the research and analysis you need to understand these critical forces. Explore Wall Street Examiner's Professional Edition – try it risk free for 30 days!)

Copyright © 2012 The Wall Street Examiner. All Rights Reserved. This article may be reposted with attribution and a prominent link to the source The Wall Street Examiner. 

Pic source: The Recycler

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 04/06/2012 - 08:29 | 2321637 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

You know if we would just accept the fact that all this crap like the markets are manipulated and not real we could save a lot of debating. LOL.  It will work until it doesn't anymore.

Fri, 04/06/2012 - 08:14 | 2321620 BeetleBailey
BeetleBailey's picture

Let's see. Roosevelt made up the daily price of gold using lucky numbers, the temperature outside, winning horse numbers at the track, and his granchildrens ages added/subtracted/multiplied.

Thus, using the "FDR" method, I'm going with 269,000 (taking the winner of the second race at last night at a local track), Tim Geithners internal I.Q., and one of Herman Cain's columns.

Fri, 04/06/2012 - 08:11 | 2321617 the not so migh...
the not so mighty maximiza's picture

10 million jobs created!!!!!!!*

 

*created or saved

 

 

 

Fri, 04/06/2012 - 07:47 | 2321600 gaoptimize
gaoptimize's picture

FOIA the formula!  The BLS should be accountable to us.

Fri, 04/06/2012 - 06:39 | 2321541 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

Lee forgot that the formula includes a sign for absolute value, so the number would be +337k.

I'm wagering 220k ... The administration needs a bright spot after getting clobbered on a couple other fronts this week. They can "fix it in post" in the coming weeks by revising it down, much the same way they make each week's initial claims look better by revising the prior numbers up so that the current numbers always look like an improvement.

Fri, 04/06/2012 - 02:27 | 2321408 Essential Nexus
Essential Nexus's picture

I'd venture the square root of -1 would be a good guess.

Fri, 04/06/2012 - 02:41 | 2321419 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

Agree, the number will either be imaginary as you suggest or just as likely irrational, say the square root of pi. Or perhaps they can calculate the phrase of the rate as e^(pi*i). In any event it would be more interesting than anything they might actually report.

Fri, 04/06/2012 - 06:41 | 2321542 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

Just to keep you honest, an irrational number is still a real number.

Fri, 04/06/2012 - 01:57 | 2321389 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

Does anyone happen to have a link for the withholding tax data referenced in this article? I have looked on the IRS site for this and cant seem to find it.

Fri, 04/06/2012 - 09:24 | 2321846 Lee Adler- The ...
Fri, 04/06/2012 - 06:26 | 2321534 Jendrzejczyk
Jendrzejczyk's picture

http://www.economagic.com/TreasDTS.htm

 

Scroll down to Table IV. Federal tax deposits.

Fri, 04/06/2012 - 06:51 | 2321547 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

Thank you sir!

Fri, 04/06/2012 - 00:00 | 2321292 Sabibaby
Sabibaby's picture

Why are you using math to estimate the number?

conomists' don't need no stinking math!

Thu, 04/05/2012 - 23:48 | 2321280 Gamma735
Gamma735's picture

Don't worry some Adminstation lacky is calling in the number tonight to be used in the report tomorrow.

Thu, 04/05/2012 - 23:26 | 2321252 Benjamin Glutton
Benjamin Glutton's picture

seasonal prisoner labor adjustment should cover the 500K difference.

Thu, 04/05/2012 - 22:59 | 2321222 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

-337,000 to 210,000...what?

The tax numbers and agg income are more important than seats filled.

 

Thu, 04/05/2012 - 23:01 | 2321221 ihedgemyhedges
ihedgemyhedges's picture

I will go with consensus of a little over 200K.  It sounds about right for a real recovery.

Sincerely, Bob Brusca

Thu, 04/05/2012 - 23:54 | 2321286 BORT
BORT's picture

It's the right thing to do

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