Having read our Opening Bell, you will know that equity futures are going bonkers over low non-farm payroll declines, brightly shining figures that have added to the strangely optimistic market tenor. The figure dropped 20,000, but:
Wall Street economists had expected an 85,000 decline in payrolls and a 5.2% unemployment rate. They also expected a faster rise in wages.
Hurray for our side. Well, wait a minute. What's this little adjustment figure here?
Earlier research indicated that while both the business birth and death portions of total employment are generally significant, the net contribution is relatively small and stable. To account for this net birth/death portion of total employment, BLS uses an estimation procedure with two components: the first component uses business deaths to impute employment for business births. This is incorporated into the sample-based estimate procedure by simply not reflecting sample units going out of business, but imputing to them the same trend as the other firms in the sample.
Sure, a few statistical adjustments. To round out a few errors, no problem. So how large is the upward, statistical adjustment for the April figures? 267,000.
Economy Shed Jobs in April But Pace of Decline Slows [WSJ]
CES Birth and Death Model [U.S. Department of Labor]
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 9:51AM
How the fuck do you know all this shit. I believe you're not actually 1 person but rather several people form disparate ends of the business posing as 1. Or George Soros.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 10:02AM
Dont be too impressed, the birth/death adjustment is old news even LoSC posted on it at some point in the past.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 10:03AM
can someone please explain what this means?
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 10:04AM
wsj must be surveying different "Wall Street economists" than bloomberg, which expected -75k
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 10:05AM
Alan Abelson has been talking about the birth/death adjustment for a year now, in Barron's, that rag of a paper that's useful for no one but the Boca set. Or so its said here.
Posted by ep , May 02, 2008 10:06AM
Public Answer: A long history and skeptical inquiry (and no childhood) resulting in a broad, generalist knowledge base.
True Answer: I know lots about nothing.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 10:09AM
Ha, "even LoSC", like it's cuteoverload or something.
It was reported in Barron's? If a tree falls in the forest...
Posted by diablo , May 02, 2008 10:14AM
As I said before on another subject, give me a blank spreadsheet and I'll give the number that you want to hear.
BTW, briefing.com had the consensus estimate as down 75K.
For those who like to look at hard data, check the daily tax witholding data from the Treasury Dept. The y-o-y rate of change has been declining steadily since the fourth quarter of 2007, and continues.
Now if people who are making less and less could borrow more and more, then the economy would be saved. Right?
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 10:18AM
dumbasses-- ep used to post on losc as julia mezzanine tranche. ''long death squad startups'' is a classic--
http://longorshortcapital.com/long-death-squad-start-ups.htm
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 10:28AM
You are not suggesting that the powers that be are manipulating the numbers to paint a rosier than reality picture to lure retail investors back into the market, are you?
What would be the point?
Oh yeah, wait ........ money.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 10:39AM
2008: The Ron Paul Comment Generators gain sentience shortly after it being placed in control of all of the U.S. Military's weaponry....
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 10:40AM
Easy to be skeptical from the sidelines. What's the alternative? What's the better method and measure?
This isn't new - Gartman has been ranting about it for years - yet markets still care about the employment numbers. I love it when people smugly announce themselves smarter than the markets.
Humility is always an expensive lesson in trading.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 10:44AM
So is hubris.
- from a skeptic that can add
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 10:46AM
Second question. How does no one know who EP is? don't the people who work at her firm notice that the same month she's on vacation there's this person with similar life experiences writing full time for Dealbreaker? How many female, senior VP, well read, sardonic, PE equity professionals, WHO ARE ON VACATION RIGHT NOW, can there be?
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 10:47AM
Interesting connections here. As @ 10:18 pointed out, ep posted under another name at LOSC. The LOSC site lists a link to a blog called "f the police". Another poster on DB: "girl", runs that one.....
Posted by AJ , May 02, 2008 10:50AM
Ritholtz also constantly blogs about this: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/05/reviewing-the-n.html
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 10:55AM
Are you shitting me girl has a blog now too? WTF so her and 1-2 and Anal_yst are all blogging away. Jesus, the dealbreaker comment section is going to be responsible for more bankers getting fired than the Bear Mortgage desk.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 10:56AM
nah, 'girl' and ep are categorically two different people.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 11:03AM
EP knows lots about assymetrical warfare.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 11:03AM
The difference between girl and EP?
I'm smarter than girl
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 11:06AM
@10:46: some of us know exactly who ep is. we just arent the sort of cocksuckers who trade on that kind of data
at the risk of embarrassing her it was obvious in retrospect but impossible to see beforehand
her talents are wasted here-- and in pe-- but she is obviously having fun
I think she is one of the smartest people in the business and her deal numbers back that up
ep-- get out of pe and move to public equities already you dumb broad
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 11:11AM
"Posted by guest, May 02, 2008 11:06AM
@10:46: some of us know exactly who ep is."
sure you do.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 11:14AM
it is so hard to believe that ep has friends who also read this blog?
Posted by Investorcluzo , May 02, 2008 11:22AM
back to the topic at hand, anyone notice that the report sites 3,000 new jobs at "financial firms":
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aabt.Q79iKsE&refer=home
has pimco already started hiring the folks at bear or have the banks hired more folks to help with the foreclosure process?
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 11:28AM
What are the odds EP is in this photo?
http://www.portfolio.com/images/site/editorial/magazine/privateequity-popup.jpg
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 11:43AM
Oh jesus, i hope not. I guess she has to be be horribly unattractive though, given her intellect, something must be wrong with her.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 11:50AM
11:28 - Far right and second from the left are sexy mamas
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 11:54AM
far right's face scares the shit out of me
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 11:58AM
Far Right ("FR") has that masculine look in her face that you will only find in finance. Sexi.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 11:59AM
"Far Right ("FR") has that masculine look in her face that you will only find in finance. Sexi."
confirmation that most guys who work in finance are closeted homosexuals (nothing wrong with that) who like to ease their way into men by fucking masculine looking women.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 12:14PM
second the left is hot in a mommy way.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 12:16PM
the one in the middle with the glasses is sexy in the naughty librarian sort of way...second from right and far right = no thanks.
Posted by Master of None , May 02, 2008 12:20PM
I've never met a woman who didn't look fugly in a suit.
Just saying.
Posted by Master of None , May 02, 2008 12:21PM
To clarify, I meant pantsuits.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 12:25PM
@master of none-- meaning they'd be more attractive if they were wearing more girlish clothes? or just that all women who wear pantsuits, i.e. all women who work in finance are ugly...clarification pls
Posted by HAM05 , May 02, 2008 12:35PM
master of none, that may have been one of the dumbest comments ever
pantsuits are not hot in and of themselves, but paired with a nice pair of boobies hugged by a brassier thats just visible through the peepholes left by barely-hanging-on buttons. if that doesnt make you tent, youre a dudelover
Posted by Anal_yst , May 02, 2008 1:27PM
@ 10:55
I've had my own blog since '05ish, i'm just not a shameless attention whore like Sykes.
Your 2nd comment though is hilarious (and likely very prescient ha...oh, wait, uh...)
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 1:29PM
who cares what they wear? all holes lead to orgasm.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 1:45PM
@1.31
let me guess -
she also wears bracelets for deflecting bullets and has a magic lasso that makes you tell the truth.
Posted by ep , May 02, 2008 1:54PM
Ok, people. The speculation is cute, and all in good fun, until it isn't anymore.
You are pushing the limits. Cool it. You know who you are.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 2:11PM
ep = ron paul?
Posted by girl , May 02, 2008 2:12PM
ooh we've got some under cover banker/detectives in our midst (admittedly not as cool as being an actor slash model but whatevs, you'll take what you can get, surely)
So far we've assessed my a) complete lack of intellect (cheers 11:03- last I checked it wasn't a qual to get an MRS) and b)possession of a blog- who knows what next! I'm quaking in my Loboutins.
ps HAM's rather astute assessment that you're all gay is, well, really rather astute.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 2:22PM
Wow. Guess the now deleted comment at 1.31 hit a nerve.
Who needs enemies when you have friends.
Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 2:25PM
@2.22,
Your next
Posted by StupidEquityGuy , May 02, 2008 2:35PM
The FED is now accepting used car loans as collateral to swap for Treasury's... USED FREAKING Cars...
I guess we are all subprime now...
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The Federal Reserve, along with other central banks, said Friday that it was increasing the funding it is providing to banks and announced that, for the first time, it was willing to accept bonds backed by auto loans and credit cards.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/fed-expands-auction-accepts-wider/story.aspx?guid=%7BBD25FFE1%2DEF18%2D45C1%2DB984%2D3CD33807727B%7D