In a new post up today, Zero Hedge claims that (from Zero Hedge):
"The seasonal addback in April was +22K, a rapid break from the last 3
years when April saw a negative seasonal adjustment following the
traditional huge positive adjustments in the January-March period, which
in turn means that the record warm winter give back has not even
started! As a result, the seasonal addbacks in 2012 are now a massive
4,499,000 jobs: jobs that have not been added but are expected to
materialize based on historical seasonal patterns."
Read that again. Yes, in fact the geniuses at Zero Hedge essentially admit that they can neither read a report, nor do simple third grade math. In FACT, only the January report has added jobs through the seasonal adjustment. In February the NSA number was +902,000 (vs a +259,000 seasonally adjusted number), ie the seasonal adjustment SUBTRACTED 643,000 jobs in February AND in March, the NSA number was +811,000 (vs a +154,000 seasonally adjusted number), ie the seasonal adjustment SUBTRACTED 657,000 jobs in March, and finally for April, the NSA number was +896,000 (vs a +115,000 seasonally adjusted number), ie the seasonal adjustment SUBTRACTED 781,000 jobs in April. Thus, the seasonal "addbacks" for the year are now a NET of 862,000, not 4.5 million (which will come out over the remainder of the year). Quick intelligence test for Zero Hedge, you do realize that the seasonal adjustments essentially zero out every year right?
Chalk this up as yet another reason to NEVER, EVER listen to Zero Hedge when it comes to interpretations of statistical reports.
Wednesday: Existing Home Sales, Bernanke Testimony and more
39 minutes ago
15 comments:
I read the bonddad blog regularly-- I'm not an economic news junkie, so I don't look at a lot of sources, and have found you guys to be a reliable source of good analysis. What I don't find useful is all the calling-out of other bloggers you disagree with. I really don't care for all the "we're right and you're wrong, nyah nyah" stuff. It's childish and pointless. Just keep doing good analysis and ignore those who publish crap. I don't read them anyway, and probably a lot of your readers don't either.
I actually appreciate that you call out bad data/analysis from other sites. I am not an economics expert and with tons of conflicting information it is hard to know who to believe. Keep doing what you are doing. Thanks!
I believe that the tone has been set for the short term (weeks? at least) in light of this poor nonfarm paryroll number: Weakness in the equity market
@ Anonymous #1
This isn't about disagreeing with Zero Hedge, this is about them being 100% wrong on their numbers by an order of several million. Using the correct data is paramount in economic analysis.
Pointing out flawed analysis and bad numbers is fine; the problem is the juvenile competitive tone. It's a regularly occurring theme on this site, which exacts a cost on your "gravitas" IMO. I'd rather see you guys keep it more dignified-- stick to the numbers and stay away from personal attacks. Rolling in the mud with these guys only brings you down. Stay above it-- the numbers are on your side; you can afford to.
I agree that the tone is somewhat inappropriate at times, but I would very much like to know when other analysis is blatantly wrong, as is the case here.
Why don't you insult other people some more, it makes you look so professional.
Talk about third grade!
Given the absurd level of stupidity displayed in the Zero Hedge article, I think Hale's tone is perfectly justified. If you say something completely stupid - and in Zero Hedge's case I'm convinced they post deceptive analyses on purpose - the lashing Hale gave them was appropriate.
SilverOz please provide a link to where you got this data from?
This is not published anywhere by the NSA or by the BLS..!!
It seems these numbers have been made up by you to discredit Zerohedge.
You say your data is genuine about the NSA subtracting seasonal adjustment without citing any sources..how are we to trust you?
i believe you are on a campaign to descredit ZH and spread lies.
Post a link for your data and prove me wrong.
lies all lies,u assholes are fooling investors !
u want the stock market to rally,so u r faking data !
burn in hell asshole bondad !
Here's your link
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm
Table B-1
where the hell does it say on the table that jobs were subtracted for seasonal adjustments ????
the table does not prove SilverOz's statements..
I once listened to an important earnings conference call and then saw the ZH report on it. They had misunderstood a couple of key issues. What was worse is that they initially tried to defend their opinions in the comments, but later, blocked me from making comments (and, I didn't make any angry or abusive comments). That I think is way worse than merely getting something wrong.
However, I think they are a great site for data. They publish all kinds of reports that the public won't have access to, so they still provide a very valuable service. Also, I think they have some contributors who are good and some who aren't, so one has to look at it on a case by case basis.
lets just keep the discussion to the current topic of the PAYROLLS numbers...
BONDDAD needs to provide a valid source for the data they cited above..
where did you get the data that jobs were cut for seasonal adjustments??
this guy IL JimP gave some link of the BLS site where there is no mention of Seasonal adjustments of job cuts the data written by Silveroz..
PLEASE EXPLAIN THE BELOW LINES WITH FIRM DATA...
" NSA number was +902,000 (vs a +259,000 seasonally adjusted number), ie the seasonal adjustment SUBTRACTED 643,000 jobs in February AND in March, the NSA number was +811,000 (vs a +154,000 seasonally adjusted number), ie the seasonal adjustment SUBTRACTED 657,000 jobs in March, and finally for April, the NSA number was +896,000 (vs a +115,000 seasonally adjusted number), ie the seasonal adjustment SUBTRACTED 781,000 jobs in April. "
If not your current and future posts will be considered as figments of imagination.
The BLS has never subtracted jobs in the first quarter for any month EVER since they started reporting..
BOTTOM LINE: PROVE your points OR PISS OFF !
Table B-1 has the data, but you'll need to use a calculator to get the numbers.
I know it's a major inconvenience to do your own math but the data is there, I got the same numbers when I did the math. Your refusal to do so, just indicates that you are lazy or incompetent.
I guess you can choose which one.
Post a Comment