GregFokker Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 which bastard did cook those numbers in a monster style manner? Word up, Foxie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flufflander Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Am I crazy for buying gold futures here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knucklehead Smith Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 I, for one, don't believe those numbers. All from personal experience and anecdote, but these numbers are inconsistent with my reality. Anybody else? I concur. I'm in IT, I'd estimate about 1 in 10 of those I know laid off in the past 2 years has found comparable work. We all know the reasons. The company I work for, one of the biggest consumer electronics manufacturers in the world, just announced an early retirement program in the US that affects 1400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregFokker Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Am I crazy for buying gold futures here? Read the Golden Stool. Doc has it sliced n diced in different timeframes. I'm waiting to load up on silver, as it looks toppy on a number of timeframes, despite the incredibly bullish funnymentals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 ======= yr 2000 ------- 5132 MARCH HIGH -677 5 t.days incl +3 t.days{doubletest} both on 50dma 4455 MARCH LOW 623 +3 t.days for 92% retrace 5078 MARCH TEST OF HIGH 92% retrace ======== yr 2003 -------- 1913 SEPTEMBER HIGH -130 8 t.days incl on 50dma...leading to...+3,5,8 t.days{doubletest} on 50dma ??????? 1783 SEPTEMBER LOW 120 **OR** +3,5,8 t.days for approx92% retrace ???????? 1903 SEPTEMBER TEST OF HIGH ??????? 92%retrace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxfox Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 I, for one, don't believe those numbers. All from personal experience and anecdote, but these numbers are inconsistent with my reality. Anybody else? In my earlier post I pointed out that there could be a large upward adjustment to reconcile the payroll and household data. Apparently, people are losing payroll jobs and starting businesses. The previous numbers were not counting those correctly. Average hourly earnings declined and the workweek did not expand. very thoughtfull. Tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMotleyStool Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Remember, these numbers are fixed using a new methodology. I read a warning on another board earlier this week, that they would show a big upside surprise and jam the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mo-Mo Monkey Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Kachingo Baby!! What a great golf game yesterday!!! Just woke up!! What happened??? Futures on fire!!! Check out CSCO!! Wow!!! New high!!! Grabbing the highest beta stocks I can find on the open. Dumping the builders, going with all tech stocks!!! Here are my top plays today: SINA, BRKS, ADTN, VTSS, ASML Doesn't matter which ones you pick!! Everything is going up!!! Put on your rally hats!! KUDLOW WAS RIGHT!! HE PREDICTED THE UNREAL GDP COMING!!! FORGET DOW 10,000!! Its going to 11,000!!! What a great day. GREENSPAN IS A GENIUS!! HE WHIPPED THE BUSINESS CYCLE!! CREATED NEW JOBS WITH HIS MONEY STIMULUS!! Where is Soup??? How about Bearman?? TIME TO SWITCH AND GO LONG!!! RIDE THE NEW BULL MKT!! Mo-Mo Monkey is going to get RICH!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sphinxter Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Remember, these numbers are fixed using a new methodology. I read a warning on another board earlier this week, that they would show a big upside surprise and jam the market. Turns out 33k of the 57 k jobs was temporary labor. Should be a gap between employment and hours worked and hourly pay, as Bearbones pointed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Mo-Mo Monkey I am right here watching the mania I am sure you have all the winning tickets Don't forget to cash them while they still honor them. L O B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMotleyStool Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Here is the post, from Sept. 30 by poster "Glorioski": Anybody hear anything about this? Someone on Zeev's board said that the government is changing the way they report gains or losses in nonfarm payrolls. (no link) This will affect the numbers that are reported Friday. What I understand is that the telephone survey from which we derive the unemployment rate has shown consistent job growth, while the employer survey has shown consistent, and massive, job losses. Apparently, small businesses, and people who start their own business and are "self-employed" are not captured in the employer survey, only in the telephone survey. A big deal was made of this last month on CNBS. Large employers are downsizing, outsourcing, etc., (creating the impression that job losses are huge) but many small businesses are being formed, and in times like these, with so many lay-offs from the big employers, many people start their own businesses and consider themselves "self-employed" - they become consultants, or even securities traders! These "new jobs" are not captured in the employer survey from which we derive the "nonfarm payrolls" numbers. (This is ONE of the reasons the unemployment rate has stayed relatively low while we have all these huge job losses.) So, I would guess that the powers that be are going to use the telephone survey for nonfarm payrolls or at least adjust the numbers from the employer survey with the numbers from the telephone survey. This will make the jobs situation look a lot better than it really is. Why do I say "better than it really is" if these jobs from small businesses and self-employment are really there? First of all, these jobs are not as secure as the "big employer" jobs used to be. A huge percentage of new businesses fail. These jobs will not come with benefits like pensions, 401k matching, or maybe not even health insurance. These jobs may not pay as much as the "big employer" jobs; and they may be part-time rather than full-time. So watch out for your shorts Friday at 8:30 if this change in the way payrolls are reported is actually going to happen. The immediate result will likely be a huge futures squeeze. I wonder how the Fed is going to justify keeping interest rates so low when the nonfarm payrolls numbers are going to start looking SO MUCH BETTER! LOL. http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=196...d=19662746&pt=r Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Is that right? Dollar Index down. Somebody thinks the U.S.Gov.is lying. Imagine that. oops. nevermind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flufflander Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Mo-Mo Monkey do your dance now, 'cause in a short time........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Live TX Z03 9280 9320 9264 9319 + 46 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buttugly Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 *fantastic numbers - all we need is another 60 months like that and we will be on the way to recouping the 3M jobs lost *and don't worry about average hourly earnings declining - it is better to have 57k more jobs and 137M people are earnings less * and long term unemployed increased by 9% * not in labour force has increased from 74,712 to 75,234 over 2 months - that's 500k people who have dropped out * glad I am on the sidelines - Kudlow is in charge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.