Author: admin

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

It was just a month and a half ago that Tesla approved an eye-popping long-term pay package, worth as much as $50 BILLION to founder and CEO Elon Musk.

And on Wednesday afternoon, Tesla held its first corporate earnings call since then.

You’d think that Elon would have been gracious and professional, anxious to demonstrate that the shareholders’ trust in him has been well-placed.

Instead the call was filled with contempt and disrespect, with Elon outright refusing to answer questions that he deemed ‘boring’.

Bear in mind, Tesla’s financial results were gruesome; the company burned through yet another $1.1 billion in cash last quarter. That’s 70% worse than in the same period last year.

Even more problematic, Tesla is losing money at such an unexpectedly fast rate that they’ll likely run out within the next several months.

According to the Wall Street Journal’s analysis, Tesla doesn’t have enough cash to cover its basic debt payments and capital leases due within the next six months.

Needless to say, investors are worried.

The shareholders and analysts on the call kept pressing Elon to explain how the company was going to survive, and how he would turn around Tesla’s notorious production challenges.

But Elon completely dismissed any such questions as “boring”, “bonehead”, and “not cool”.

Pretty amazing.

I mean, this guy was given a potentially $50 billion compensation package just six weeks ago.

So the LEAST he could do was answer his investors’ completely reasonable questions.

But he didn’t. It’s almost as if he deliberately wanted to show as much disrespect as possible to the trust and confidence that shareholders have placed in him.

This is a pretty despicable attitude for any executive to have.

Yet this whole situation is emblematic of what I call ‘the new rules of capitalism.’

And New Rule #1 is: Businesses no longer need to make money.

Tesla is just one of a multitude of high-flying, hot-shot companies whose entire business models are based on burning through cash, managed by executives who don’t care.

WeWork, as we’ve often discussed, is an even more absurd example.

WeWork provides short-term office space to companies around the world, with a whole bunch of interesting perks (including free tequila).

For customers, it’s great. But WeWork loses tons of money providing all those great perks to its customers… which means that investors are ultimately footing the bill.

In other words, the suckers who invested in WeWork are essentially buying tequila shots for the office tenants.

Similarly, Uber continues to lose money; according to the company’s leaked financial statements, Uber lost a whopping $4.5 billion in 2017.

To put it another way, every time you take an Uber somewhere, the company is losing money… which means that the suckers who invested in Uber are subsidizing your ride.

Netflix is another perennial loser, having burned through more than $2 billion of its shareholders’ money last year in order to produce original content.

Remember that the next time you binge watch Stranger Things— Netflix investors are heavily subsidizing your evening’s entertainment.

I read an article in the Wall Street Journal last weekend about young people in San Francisco who receive oodles of free goodies from VC-funded startups.

One guy was able to buy a small car because a car-sharing startup offered him thousands of dollars in CASH just to sign up and use the service.

Others talked about eating dozens of gourmet meals for free, courtesy of the various meal delivery startups in San Francisco who offer free meals to new customers.

Ultimately this means that the suckers who invested in those startups are buying meals, clothes, cars, and just about everything else, for freeloading consumers.

There are so many more examples– Dropbox, Snapchat, etc.– of companies whose sucker investors are footing the bill for consumers.

Each of these companies loses money. And it’s becoming an epidemic.

In fact, more than 20% of the companies which comprise the Russell 2000 index, and nearly 10% of companies in the S&P 500 index, burn through so much cash that they have to BORROW money just to pay INTEREST on their debts.

But under the new rules of capitalism, these losses don’t matter… because there are countless investors, funds, and bankers delighted to have the opportunity to put more capital into the business.

This isn’t normal– it goes against the most basic laws of finance: businesses are supposed to make money for their investors, not the other way around.

Yet investors keep throwing capital into these bottomless pits… while (and this is REALLY bizarre) simultaneously showering the founders with blind admiration.

It’s incredible how much praise and esteem is hurled upon company founders who burn through their investors’ capital like a deranged financial sociopath.

Instead of being fired for incompetence, however, they’re hailed as ‘visionaries’.

These people are completely out of touch– both the founders who treat their shareholders with such contempt, as well as the sucker investors who continue enabling this abuse.

You don’t have to be Nostradamus to recognize that some day this stupidity will end suddenly and painfully.

And to continue learning how to safely grow your wealth, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2js6GHh Tyler Durden

The Trump State Department has frozen funding to the controversial Syrian aid group known as the White Hemlets, a non-governmental organization (NGO) which provided the sole evidence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad reportedly used chemical weapons on his own people in an April 7 attack on the city of Douma, according to CBS News.

Having not received U.S. funding in recent weeks, White Helmets are questioning what this means for the future. They have received no formal declaration from the U.S. government that the monetary assistance has come to a full halt, but the group’s people on the ground in Syria report that their funds have been cut off. –CBS News

The evidence provided by the White Helmets of the alleged chemical attack was used by the West to justify several airstrikes on Syrian scientific and military facilities throughout April – the first one conducted on Syria’s T4 airbase by Israel 48 hours after the White Helmets’ report. Many Douma residents, meanwhile – including Hospital personnel, say the chemical attack never happened.

The White Helmets are a 3,000 member NGO formally known as the Syrian Civil Defense. Established in “late 2012 – early 2013” after a group of 20 Syrians were trained and organized by former British army officer James Le Mesurier. The group then received funding from Le Mesurier’s Netherlands-based non-profit group, Mayday Rescue – which is in turn funded by grants from the Dutch, British, Danish and German governments. 

The US has provided at least $32 million to the group – around 1/3 of their total funding – through a USAID scheme orchestrated by the Obama State Department and funneled to the White Helmets using a Washington D.C. contractor participating in USAID’s Syria regional program, Chemonics. 

According to their website, the White Helmets have been directly funded by Mayday Rescue, and a company called Chemonics, since 2014.

Yet there’s evidence that both of those organizations started supporting the White Helmets back in early 2013, right around the time the White Helmets claim to have formed as self-organized groups.

Mayday Rescue, as we said, is funded by the Dutch, British, Danish and German governments. And Chemonics?

They are a Washington, D.C. based contractor that was awarded $128.5 million in January 2013 to support “a peaceful transition to a democratic and stable Syria” as part of USAID’s Syria regional program. At least $32 million has been given directly to the White Helmets as of February 2018. –TruthInMedia

So the US, Dutch, British, Danish and German governments have been funding the White Helmets, a non-governmental organization, through proxies for around five years.

Shut It Down

Perhaps fueled by troubling reports that the White Helmets have been accused of staging incidents, the Trump administration has now frozen funding to the group, and has placed support under “active review.” 

Now they are not getting any U.S funding as the State Department says the support is “under active review.” The U.S had accounted for about a third of the group’s overall funding.

An internal State Department document said that its Near East Bureau needed confirmation from the administration to green light funding for the White Helmets in Syria by April 15th or the department would initiate “shut-down procedures on a rolling basis.” –CBS News

“This is a very worrisome development,” an official with the White Helmets told CBS. “Ultimately, this will negatively impact the humanitarian workers ability to save lives.”

Or not, depending on how one feels about the White Helmets… 

Questions over authenticity

Last week, Russian officials brought fifteen people to The Hague from the city of Douma, Syria said to have been present during the alleged April 7 chemical attack, including 11-year-old Hassan Diab who was seen in a widely-distributed White Helmets video receiving “emergency treatment” in a local hospital after the alleged incident. 

“We were at the basement and we heard people shouting that we needed to go to a hospital. We went through a tunnel. At the hospital they started pouring cold water on me,” said Diab, who was featured in the video which Russia’s ambassador to the Netherlands says was staged.

The boy and his family have spoken to various media outlets, who say there was no attack. 

The 11yo Syrian boy Hassan Diab, filmed by the #WhiteHelmets in their staged #DoumaProvocation video, together with 17 other witnesses is in the Hague, participated in today’s joint Russia-Syria briefing at the #OPCW pic.twitter.com/W9t9IhC7oA

— maytham (@maytham956) April 26, 2018

Others present during the filming of Diab’s hospital “cleanup” by the White Helmets include hospital administrator Ahmad Kashoi, who runs the emergency ward. 

“There were people unknown to us who were filming the emergency care, they were filming the chaos taking place inside, and were filming people being doused with water. The instruments they used to douse them with water were originally used to clean the floors actually,” Ahmad Kashoi, an administrator of the emergency ward, recalled. “That happened for about an hour, we provided help to them and sent them home. No one has died. No one suffered from chemical exposure.” –RT

Also speaking at The Hague was Halil al-Jaish, an emergency worker who treated people at the Douma hospital the day of the attack – who said that while some patients did come in for respiratory problems, they were attributed to heavy dust, present in the air after recent airstrikes, but that nobody showed signs of chemical warfare poisoning.

The White Helmets have previously come under fire for allegations of fabricating evidence and staging bodies. Several of their members have been pictured with, or bear an uncanny resemblance to fighters from the various anti-Assad terrorist groups operating in the region.

Photographic and video evidence gathered over social media and elsewhere depicting White Helmets who appear to be affiliated with terrorist groups can be found here.

And Donald Trump just yanked 1/3 of their funding… 

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2HWiPz7 Tyler Durden

Via Dana Lyons’ Tumblr,

There is some evidence to suggest that stock investors would be well served by selling in May and going away this year.

One of the most famous of all of Wall Street’s trading bromides is “Sell In May & Go Away”. Of course, the saying refers to the tendency of stocks to perform worse during the 6 months from May through October than they do from November through April. Perhaps the reason why it is still so popular is that, unlike some of Wall Street’s other sayings, there is actually solid historical evidence to back it up, including recent history.

Specifically, here are the average returns in the Dow Jones Industrial Average during the 2 periods since 1900:

• November-April: +5.45%
• May-October: +1.61%

Not only does the average return for the May-October period lag badly, but the consistency of positive returns has been less reliable:

• November-April: 69% Positive Returns
• May-October: 61% Positive Returns

Plus, as mentioned, unlike many seasonal tendencies that lose their effectiveness over time as the edge gets arbitraged away, the Sell In May pattern has held true even as of late. For example, 7 of the last 8 years, 11 of the last 13 years and 19 of the last 24 years saw the Dow stronger from November-April than from May-October.

So is there any thing that bulls can hang their hat on during the forthcoming 6 months? Well, first of all, despite the fact that May-October has generally lagged its 6-month counterpart, the historical average return for the period is still positive. So it’s not like the whole period has been a disaster, though there have certainly been some of those.

In parsing the data, however, we have found one historical trend that may suggest that the “Sell In May…” advice may be better served this year than most. It is based on the (also relatively consistent) 4-year Presidential Cycle. Naturally, the average Sell In May returns are not uniform across all years. And specifically, we see dispersion, and a wide one at that, among the 4 years within the Presidential Cycle. For example, during “Year 4’s”, the May-October average returns actually exceed those of the November-April period.

It is a different story in “Year 2’s”, however. In fact, at +0.00%, the average May-October return during Year 2’s is the worst of any of the 4 years.

We will say that this seasonal tendency is far down on the list of decision-makers for us as it pertains to these upcoming 6 months. We have our models and indicators that we track which, as always, will guide our investment posture. That said, to the extent that the Presidential Cycle does exert influence on the “Sell In May…” pattern this year, there is evidence to suggest that investors may be well served to follow the advice.

*  *  *

If you’re interested in the “all-access” version of our charts and research, please check out our new site, The Lyons Share. You can follow our investment process and posture every day — including insights into what we’re looking to buy and sell and when. Thanks for reading!

via RSS https://ift.tt/2rkl9tc Tyler Durden

Like most motions to dismiss, Paul Manafort’s was initially viewed as a long-shot bid to win the political operative his freedom and get out from under the thumb of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

But after today’s hearing on a motion to dismiss filed by Manafort’s lawyers, it’s looking increasingly likely that Manafort could escape his charges – and finally be free of his ankle bracelets – as judge Amy Berman Jackson questioned Mueller’s “unfettered power” to prosecute over charges that have nothing to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

Berman said she’s concerned Mueller is only pursuing charges against Manafort to pressure him to turn on his former boss, and said the charges against Manafort didn’t stem from Mueller’s collusion probe, but a preexisting case that was nearly brought by the FBI years ago before it was eventually dropped.

Berman has given prosecutors two weeks to show what evidence they have that Manafort was complicit in colluding with the Russians. If they can’t come up with any, she will presumably dismiss the case. She said she would also like to see the letter signed by Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein outlining the scope of the Mueller probe.

Of course, such a dismissal would be nothing short of groundbreaking. It would potentially make it much harder for Mueller to turn witnesses against the president.

Uh-oh precedence if this gets dismissed…. The Judge may single handedly end the cat and mouse games by the special council and would make it much harder for Muller to turn any other parties to his side (because all charges are unrelated to Russia so far)….

— Rob Lee (@WRRob) May 4, 2018

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2JVd7xZ Tyler Durden

The Columbia law professor used by former FBI Director James Comey as an intermediary to leak the details of now-classified memos worked as a “special government employee” at the FBI for over a year, serving “at the pleasure of Director [Comey], according to Fox News.

Records reviewed by Fox News now show he [Richman] signed the agreement as early as June 30, 2015. The former director previously told Fox News that Richman left the FBI in February 2017, meaning he served there for well over a year.

Sources familiar with Richman’s FBI status said he was assigned to “special projects” by Comey, and had a security clearance as well as badge access to the building. Richman told Fox News in an email last week that he was working as an SGE on an unpaid basis. –Fox News

Richman’s allegedly unpaid work included “defending Comey’s handling of the Clinton email case, including the controversial decision to reopen the probe shortly before the presidential election.”

FBI records show that as a special government employee, Richman would “serve at the pleasure of the Director [Comey],” with an initial term of one year. Richman’s stated responsibilities included the use of encryption by terror suspects — known as “Going Dark.” In August 2015, his projects were expanded to include “an examination of the implications of federal investigations being brought to state and local prosecutors.” –Fox News

So – not only did Richman serve as the conduit for Comey’s leak three months after he left the FBI, Richman defended Comey to the media while serving at Comey’s pleasure as a “special government employee.” He was typically identified as a law professor by the media, and sometimes as a policy adviser to Comey, reports Fox. 

Richman was sent talking points about the Clinton investigation according to government transcripts, which compared Clinton’s use of an unsecured private server to that of retired Gen. David Petraeus, who shared classified information with his mistress and biographer, Paula Broadwell. The talking points also mentioned Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s former national security adviser who pleaded guilty to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives. 

In other words, Richman was a shill for the FBI – which is quite a departure from what James Comey originally described him as. In January, Comey told Congressional investigators that Richman was merely a good friend – failing to mention that he was also his direct report at the FBI for over a year. 

After controversy erupted over whether the memos were classified or not when he wrote them, Richman then said he was Comey’s lawyer – theoretically keeping their communications off-limits to investigators under Attorney-client privilege. 

Since Richman’s time at the bureau, Republican lawmakers have taken interest in his role – specifically in helping Comey leak the contents of at least one memo documenting his private discussions with President Trump to the media, after Richman left the bureau. Richman first emerged last year during Senate testimony as the former FBI director’s contact for getting that information out to the media, to kick-start the Russia special counsel investigation. –Fox News

When in a recent interview asked why he didn’t reveal this under questioning, Comey said “it wasn’t relevant” since Richman left the FBI in February 2017.

Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., have requested that the Department of Justice turn over documents pertaining to Richman’s stint at the FBI and his handling of the memos, via a letter addressed to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

To recap: Comey’s “good friend” and then “lawyer,” Daniel Richman – was also a FBI employee for 17 months serving at his pleasure. Three months after Richman left the FBI, Comey then used Richman to leak the details of his memo to the New York Times within a week of Comey’s firing, in the hopes of sparking the special counsel.

Maybe this was one of the “six ways from Sunday” Chuck Schumer (D-NY) famously threatened President Trump with if he crosses the swamp, as it seems Richman served at Comey’s pleasure even after his unpaid stint at the agency. What a guy!

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Ky3030 Tyler Durden

Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

The geopolitical risk premium has taken center stage as one of the key drivers of oil prices in recent months, often trumping fundamentals to send prices soaring on concerns about where the next sudden oil supply disruption would come from.

In recent weeks, a perfect storm of nearly erased global oil glut and simmering—and at times flaring—tensions in the Middle East and the worst production loss without an armed conflict (Venezuela) have supported oil prices and boosted them to levels last seen in November 2014.

In the coming weeks and months, geopolitical risks could further boost oil prices in a market that hasn’t been this tight in years. The main risks to oil supply could come from the Middle East, North Africa, and Venezuela.

S&P Global Platts has summed up the key flashpoints around the world that could lead to oil supply disruptions, potentially further boosting oil prices.

Iran

OPEC’s third-largest producer Iran—which pumps 3.8 million bpd as per OPEC’s secondary sources—could be the most immediate threat to supply.

U.S. President Donald Trump has until May 12 to decide whether to waive the sanctions against Tehran as part of the nuclear deal that global powers signed with Iran. Analysts think that the possibility of President Trump not waiving the sanctions is high, but they diverge wildly as to how a no-waiver would impact Iran’s oil exports and global oil prices. Estimates vary from a zero to one million bpd loss of supply out of Iran, and a premium to oil prices of between $2 and $10. Iran’s top oil customers are China, India, and South Korea. 

Yemen

The Iran-Saudi proxy war in Yemen risks escalating. The Iran-aligned Yemeni rebels—who have been fighting a Saudi-led Arab coalition in Yemen since 2015—have been targetingSaudi Aramco oil facilities and the Saudi capital Riyadh with missiles and have been trying to attack Saudi oil tankers in the sea. Yemen lies along one of the main global oil chokepoints in the Red Sea. Millions of barrels of crude oil pass Yemeni shores from the Suez Canal en route to Europe every day.

The Red Sea

The conflict in Yemen is also a risk to tanker route disruptions in the Red Sea. While Yemen is not a major oil producer, further escalation of the war could spill over to the oil chokepoints around the Middle East that could disrupt oil tanker routes and flows.

The Bab el-Mandeb Strait is one of the key chokepoints around the Arabian Peninsula. Located between Yemen, Djibouti, and Eritrea, Bab el-Mandeb connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. According to EIA estimates, a total of 4.8 million bpd of crude oil and refined petroleum products flowed through this waterway in 2016 toward Europe, the United States, and Asia. 

The Strait of Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most important chokepoint, with an oil flow of 18.5 million bpd in 2016, the EIA estimates. The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea and is the key route through which Persian Gulf exporters—Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, and Bahrain—ship their oil. Only Saudi Arabia and the UAE have pipelines that can ship crude oil outside of the Persian Gulf and have additional pipeline capacity to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, which is a route of more than 30 percent of daily global seaborne-traded crude oil and petroleum products and more than 30 percent of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) flows. Iran has threatened in the past to block the Strait of Hormuz, and although analysts think that it would struggle to do so due to the U.S. naval presence in the area, a further flare-up in the Tehran-U.S. relations could be a risk to the oil flows in this vital global chokepoint.

Syria

The complex proxy conflict in Syria is also a risk to heightened tension in the Middle East, although Syria is not a big oil producer. Further escalation of the conflict, or heightened U.S. vs. Russia/Iran tension, is a risk to which the oil market could react.

Iraq

Iraq—OPEC’s second-largest producer behind Saudi Arabia—is holding parliamentary elections on May 12 amid still unresolved issues with the Kurdish region that have hit Iraq’s oil exports from the north to Turkey’s Mediterranean coast. According to Platts, the election is a short-term risk as it could delay assigning oil contracts as Iraq is pushing for recovery of its oil, refining, and civil infrastructure sectors after it declared victory over ISIS at the end of last year.

Unsurprisingly, the Middle East is home to most of the oil supply risks. But there are other geopolitical risk factors to oil prices, both close to the Middle East and far off in Latin America.

Libya

The North African oil producer has managed to lift its production to around 1 million bpd, but risks still persist with rival factions fighting for control and suddenly disrupting oil facilities’ operations and oil export terminals.

Venezuela  

 Venezuela’s oil production is crumbling, and the only way ahead is further down, all analysts say. The only question is how low the production could drop. According to OPEC’s secondary sources, Venezuela’s oil production averaged 2.154 million bpd in 2016, and 1.916 million bpd in 2017. In March 2018, its production plunged to 1.488 million bpd. Oil production is set to further collapse amid lack of maintenance, staff exodus, and the economy in total disarray. Venezuela holds a presidential election on May 20, which the U.S. and several Latin American nations say they will not recognize. New sanctions on Venezuela could follow, including a possible ban on U.S. light oil exports that Venezuela uses to blend its heavy oil to move it through pipelines.

To be sure, none of the above geopolitical risks could materialize, but even if just one or two were to occur and actually disrupt oil supply, oil prices could surge in this tight market.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2jthODV Tyler Durden

President Trump answered some shouted questions from reporters as he headed for the helicopter this morning.

While his main focus was on how great the jobs number was and the “Witch Hunt” that is Mueller’s investigation (and the Democrat-led investigations)…

Trump said “if it was fair, he would override the advice of his lawyers not to speak to Mueller.”

“I would love to talk to Mueller or the investigations, because there was no collusion with Russia, but there are 13 democrats, 13 angry democrats, and I wouldn’t be treated fairly.”

We suspect the main headlines will be about his comments on Rudy Giuliani, after Giuliani appeared for a series of bombshell interviews on Fox News and declared that Cohen was repaid by the president for his $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an alleged affair with Trump.

“…we love Rudy, he’s a special guy but he doesn’t understand all the facts… he’s only been here a few days… he understands this is a witch hunt… he’ll get his facts straight.“

President Trump on Rudy Giuliani: “He started yesterday. He’ll get his facts straight. He’s a great guy.” pic.twitter.com/mTjYdcMCCX

— NBC News (@NBCNews) May 4, 2018

Which clearly implies the White House is shifting the narrative once again.

Of course, judging by President Trump’s historical playbook of praising before firing his staff, his “special guy… great guy” comments could be ominous for Giuliani.

Additionally, Mediate is reporting that MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch dropped a bombshell on Morning Joe Friday, stating that said President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen told him Rudy Giuliani “doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

Giuliani’s comments were an effort to defend Cohen against charges his payment to Daniels violated campaign finance laws, though it’s not clear he cleaned anything up for the president’s fixer.

“The Giuliani thing is interesting,” Deutsch said. “We forget how during the campaign, Giuliani was unhinged. I mean if you showed clips of him during the campaign, there was a reason he didn’t get hired for all the jobs that he wanted to.”

“I spoke with Michael Cohen yesterday, and his remark about Giuliani, was that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” Deutsch said. “He also said look, there are two people that know exactly what happened. And that’s myself and the president. And you’ll be hearing my side of the story.”

“And he was obviously very frustrated with what had come out yesterday,” Deutsch added.

Finally, we note that Trump said that they have a date and location ready for the Summit with North Korean leader Kim (but would not reveal it).

via RSS https://ift.tt/2FLgRja Tyler Durden

After years of monthly payroll reports padded with excessive minimum wage waiter, bartender, educator or retail worker jobs, the just released April jobs report, disappointing as it may have been on the top-line, showed surprising strength in most components even if some negative surprises were also present.

Of note: the biggest jobs growth in April was in the higher paying job categories, such as professional services and manufacturing. The notable sector trends are as follows, via Southbay Research:

• Continued strength in Goods Production: Oil services (+7K), Construction (+17K) & Manufacturing (+24K).
• Trade & Transportation Slowed: Wholesale (-10K), Retail (+2K), and Transportation (+0K).

And while the retail sluggishness was expected, the weakness in Wholesale and Transportation was not, especially since it was contradicted by micro level data sourced directly from major trucking employers, all of whom have been complaining they can’t find enough people to hire, which suggests there may be an upward revision next month.

Some other highlights:

• Professional Services were especially strong, with a balanced mix of White collar demand (Technical services +26K) and Admin & Suppport (+28K). The offset: Temp workers came in soft at just +10.3K.
• Manufacturing also very strong at +24K: machinery added +8K jobs and fabricated metal products was up +4,000.
• Education weak with just +1.1K: Unexplained significant weakness in this sector.
• Healthcare was steady: +29.3K: Employment rose in ambulatory health care services (+17,000) and hospitals (+8,000).
•  
• Leisure & Hospitality mild: +18K
• Mining +8K solid, most of the gain came from support activities for mining (+7,000).

Visually:

Looking over the past year, the following charts from Bloomberg show the industries with the highest and lowest rates of employment growth for the prior year. The latest month’s figures are highlighted. Wage data are shown when available.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2rjHGq4 Tyler Durden