Gouveia e Melo continua a perder terreno

[Branc0]

Se leres o artigo que eu coloquei reparas que existe uma politica de descontar empregos que eles "acham" que foram destruidos mas não fazem a minima ideia se foram ou não.

É essa a razão de o mês passado terem dito que foram criados apenas 17k mas este mês reviram para 84k.

Não acho que seja sinal de chuva nem sinal de sol. Acho que é um indicador da treta.

[vitorigus]

Cuidado com este número, a revisão que foi feita em alta (brutalmente) deve indicar que este não é um numero de fiar (obviamente o mercado reage a ele na mesma no curto prazo).

mas atão...
O número de postos de trabalho caiu em 17 mil face ao ganho de 82 mil registado em Dezembro e isso nao é indicativo de chuva?

[Branc0]

Cuidado com este número, a revisão que foi feita em alta (brutalmente) deve indicar que este não é um numero de fiar (obviamente o mercado reage a ele na mesma no curto prazo).

Fica este artigo bastante interessante sobre como é construido o indicador.

FRIDAY'S JOBS REPORT MAY SHOCK MARKETS
By JOHN CRUDELE


January 31, 2008 -- CLASS is in session! Put out your smokes and get your feet off the desk.

I've already predicted that this Friday's employment number could be shockingly bad. And yesterday the Federal Reserve cited "some softening in the labor markets" as one of two key reasons it took the bold move of cutting interest rates for the second time in two weeks.

While I hope my prediction for Friday is wrong (really, I do), I'd like to give you a step-by-step guide to understanding why the job expansion - or even a contraction - in January may not be as ugly as it could appear.

Yes, I'm showing the glass half-full in this column.

Follow closely because this guide will make you smarter than almost everyone on Wall Street (which really isn't saying much.) You will need a computer, so kick your kid off MySpace for a few minutes.

Step 1: Turn the machine on. (OK, that's obvious but you never know.)

Step 2: Go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site - www.bls.gov

Step 3: Go to "Advanced Search" at the top of the page and type in birth/death model.

Step 4: That'll take you to a page that says CES Birth/Death Model Frequently Asked Questions. Skip over the Q&A and click on Return to CES Net Birth/Death Model, which is all the way down at the bottom.

Step 5: You've found the treasure - a chart that is the main reason why the monthly employment figures have been distorting the employment picture for years.

Step 6: Look at the 2007 chart and you'll see that last January the Labor Department subtracted 175,000 jobs from its physical count because it believed its surveyors failed to pick up companies that it thinks - but can't prove - went out of business after the holidays.

If you look to the right of that negative 175,000 number, you'll notice that in every other month the BLS adds tons of jobs because it believes its survey is missing a whole lot of new companies that are being born.

January is the "death" part of the Model; the other 11 months are the "birth." Are that many jobs really quietly lost in January? And are hundreds of thousands of jobs created in the other 11 months by companies quietly popping up here and there? The answer is "no" to both questions.

But that's not the point of this column.

We're not trying to figure out the real job growth in the country. We are just determining how Friday's report will be funky because of statistical distortions.

January is always a month in which the BLS subtracts jobs from its count
-
193,000 in 2006; 280,000 in '05; 321,000 in '04 and 211,000 in 2003.

And because Wall Street still hasn't caught on to this stat trick, the guesses for job growth in January are almost always too high.

In 2007, for instance, the experts were expecting 150,000 new jobs (those were the good ole days), but growth was reported at only 111,000.

The 175,000 jobs subtracted by the birth/death model took a big bite out of last January's number.

It's liable to happen again.

One foolishly optimistic company is predicting that the government will report 120,000 new jobs on Friday.

Most of Wall Street is in the 50,000 to 60,000 range - at least they were before the Fed opened its yap yesterday.


Wednesday was a day for glum economic news, and that's why I am taking such pains (and causing such pain to my readers) by explaining in such excruciating details how the government bends and twists its employment data.

The Commerce Department yesterday announced that economic growth in the last three months of 2007 rose just 0.6 percent - which is barely any growth at all since that's an annualized rate.


If you factor in a more reasonable level of inflation than Washington does, the fourth quarter will easily qualify as the beginning of a recession.


Then yesterday afternoon the Federal Reserve had this to say when it reduced its federal funds and discount rate by another half a percentage
point: "Financial markets remain under considerable stress, and credit has tightened further for some businesses and households."

The bank also said that the housing contraction had deepened and jobs were harder to find.

Ouch!

While stocks rallied nicely immediately after the Fed's move, the "cut"
in
rates continues to cause a lot of nervousness.

Stocks gave up most of their gains after more concern arose over another bond insurer turned out to be more important than what the Fed did.

The dollar got clobbered - again - and bonds fell in price, which caused market interest rates to rise.

That isn't exactly what the Fed wants to happen.

If Friday's employment numbers are good and there's relief that the economy might not be doing so badly after all, then bonds and the dollar will tank some more on inflation fears.

And real borrowing costs (not the symbolic ones controlled by the Fed) will rise.

A bad employment number will instigate more hollering for rate cuts.

The trouble is, if the Fed wants to oblige Wall Street it will have to do so in another emergency move or wait until mid-March.

And, class, that's a long wait in an environment like this.

Já aprendi uma coisa nova hoje.

[lufonz]

O esperado era +80mil e não +70 mil..
Eu só me pergunto qual é a notícia mais importante.Esta, a inflação na Europa a níveis altíssimos deixando antever que a descida de juros na Europa nao é assim tao certa, ou a OPA da Microsoft sobre a Yahoo!.
Pelos vistos os investidores ficam todos contentes com algo que realmente não afecta em nada a performance das cotadas no nosso país ou na Europa, deixando de lado o mais importante e que realmente afecta...
Tenham calma..

[Sulla]

Boa Tarde,

É impressão minha ou o título da notícia do DE "Economia norte-americana perde empregos inesperadamente em Janeiro", não condiz com o conteudo dos dados, na medida em q a taxa de desemprego em Janeiro 2008 é de 4,9%, contra os 5% de Dezembro 2007.

Alguem tem ideia se estes resultados estão em linha com o esperado?

Cumprimentos
Ltelesster

Isso refere-se aos payrolls que sairam aos -17 mil face aos +70 mil esperados.

[Ulisses Pereira]

Doug Kass
Shorting Retail on Jobs Report
2/1/2008 8:46 AM EST

"I have liked a number of early cycle sectors (financials and retail), which have rallied enthusiastically into the Fed rate cut.

Today's jobs report is definitive - we are in a recession.

From my perch, the Fed is pushing on a string into an exposed consumer who is levered and spent-up. This is where the debate will be.

Retail is my short emphasis now, and the recent strength provides an excellent entry point.

Position: Short RTH "

(in www.realmoney.com)

[leaozinho_1969]

in bloomberg

"U.S. Stock Futures Pare Gains After Unexpected Drop in Jobs

By Michael Patterson

Feb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stock-index futures pared gains after the government reported an unexpected decrease in jobs last month, slowing a rally sparked by Microsoft Corp.'s $44.6 billion offer to buy Yahoo! Inc.

Standard & Poor's 500 Index futures expiring in March added 6.5 points to 1,386.1 at 8:39 a.m. in New York after advancing as much as 18.1. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures added 77 to 12,691 after earlier climbing 165. Nasdaq-100 Index futures increased 20 to 1,867.75.

Payrolls fell by 17,000 in January, the first drop in more than four years, the Labor Department said. None of the 80 economists surveyed by Bloomberg had predicted a decline.

Microsoft's $31-a-share bid, 62 percent more than Yahoo's closing price yesterday, helped futures rebound from earlier losses sparked by earnings that trailed analysts' estimates at Google Inc. EBay Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and Time Warner Inc. also rallied. Motorola Inc., the biggest U.S. mobile-phone maker, rose after saying it may split off its money-losing handset unit."

[Ulisses Pereira]

Os dados sairam, de facto, pior que o esperado.

Um abraço,
Ulisses

[ltelesster]

Boa Tarde,

É impressão minha ou o título da notícia do DE "Economia norte-americana perde empregos inesperadamente em Janeiro", não condiz com o conteudo dos dados, na medida em q a taxa de desemprego em Janeiro 2008 é de 4,9%, contra os 5% de Dezembro 2007.

Alguem tem ideia se estes resultados estão em linha com o esperado?

Cumprimentos
Ltelesster