This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
January Payrolls Have Missed Expectations 9 Of The Last 10 Times
Yesterday, in the aftermath of the latest disappointing economic data this time from the non-mfg ISM, Goldman surprised many when it cut its January non-farm payroll estimate from an above consensus 250K to a below consensus 210K (the Wall Street estimate is 230K), some scratched their heads why Goldman is now forecasting the lowest pace of job growth since August, and well below the 12 month trailing average of 246K. The answer may have something to do with this.
The US chief analyst of Nordea, Johnny Bo Jakobsen, points out a curious statistical finding: in the past decade, consensus forecast over-estimated January reading on 9 out of 10 occasions. As the chart below shows, the average overoptimistic consensus miss for January is just about 50K, with the last time consensus was lower than the final result taking place in 2012, and before that, one has to go all the way back to 2003 for the second payrolls "beat".
So will tomorrow be 10 out of 11, or will this time be different, as the BLS refuses to admit the crude reality of the shale patch for yet another month and hides the mass terminations that are taking place among energy companies with another layer of unprecedented seasonal adjustments?
»
- 3439 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
memo: replace batteries in crystal ball.
Pay?
What's that?
"Santa Claus ain't comin'
to town!"
BLS should learn from Russia. Breshnew had heard thet the weather forecasting department had created a perfect computer model for weather. He asked how often their weather prediction is correct? Reply was 'about 40%". Breshnew saw a problem suggested: "as you have now a working model, why don't you just report the opposite from whaever it tells...'
FireBrander is right this just proves that there is no need to be a prepper....FireBrander is THE man!!
It just doesn't matter. Payrolls miss = Great More QE!!!!
if stocks go lower becuase of this number does it really matter..they will just go higher next week
No matter what the numbers are it will be bullish... everything is bullish... bullish bullish bullshit....
So what you're saying is it should revet to mean and exceed expectation :)
Unbelievable! I read everywhere that the economy has recovered. I've heard Obama say repeatedly that we've recovered! Someone is lying....
It's your eyes... you need glasses, preferrably rose colored ones.
In this financial fantasy world these numbers are rendered utterly meaningless. The only thing that matters is that everyone is connected to the milking machine. As long as there are no defections or disruptions this can go on (and has) for years.
Now, is there anyone out there who really believes that QE has really ended? Maybe not buying bonds, which ends up in stocks but SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY the fed is floating up the stock market.
right now, the fed isn't even talking qe. i follow the dow, and for the last 2 weeks, on each day, one stock has been picked and jumps 5,6,7% another follow along at 2,3%, the rest are flat and the index rises. as the index rises, more people will chase it. here are a few, boeing, caterpillar, visa, today goldman. this will hit all time highs by the end of next week, i have no doubt.
5 years later, everyone is still talking about the 'recovery'. guess they believe. i wouldn't fight the fed, the fed isn't fighting anymore, they LOVE this. now it's the market.
apparently, the usa has recovered, and now it's all off to them moon.
i personally find it amazing how long this has been going on, and i expect it to continue until it doesn't. which might be a long time from now.
as the trillions and trillions that us, eu, japan and china have printed, slowly seep out from the bank 'balance' sheets, stocks will continue to go up. this time, it is different. it's hyper-inflation but via computer digital zeros.
banks don't need to buy a loaf of bread, or even thousands of them. they need to buy 'liquid' assets with all those zeros, and they have.
and they don't intend to be the one's holding the bag, either.