Author: admin

Something curious happened earlier today when the DOL revealed its latest initial claims number: while the seasonally adjusted print declined by 10,000 to an expectations beating 316K (a change that identically matched what happened to the Seasonally Adjusted print a year ago), the unadjusted number rose by 37,229 to 363K. That’s ok: after all that’s what “seasonal adjustments” are for – to take a volatile number which historically posts an abnormal jump or drop in any given week and smooth it out, right? Wrong. Because as the DOL also reported a year ago, the supposedly same “seasonal adjustment” applied to the same week in 2012, when the claims number was 390K adjusted and 359K unadjusted, should have been adjusted in the same direction. And while the 390K claims print in 2012 was indeed a 10,000 drop from the prior week’s 400K, the unadjusted number instead of being an increase, was actually a drop, one of 44,768 jobs. How does this same “recurring” seasonal adjustment look further back – after all it is seasonal, so there should be some recurring logic for a specific time of the year? The answer is shown on the chart below.

In other words, the “same” adjustment that in the past was applied to an NSA weekly change that was a greater drop than the seasonally adjusted print, somehow in 2013 ended up having its sign flipped, and made the weekly spike in claims look much better than it actually was. For the exactly same week.

One wonders just what other goalseeking intentions (and directive) the BLS had when it ordered the Arima “adjustment” software to make such a radical departure in this specific week?

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/hI0YhJM-Rpk/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Something curious happened earlier today when the DOL revealed its latest initial claims number: while the seasonally adjusted print declined by 10,000 to an expectations beating 316K (a change that identically matched what happened to the Seasonally Adjusted print a year ago), the unadjusted number rose by 37,229 to 363K. That’s ok: after all that’s what “seasonal adjustments” are for – to take a volatile number which historically posts an abnormal jump or drop in any given week and smooth it out, right? Wrong. Because as the DOL also reported a year ago, the supposedly same “seasonal adjustment” applied to the same week in 2012, when the claims number was 390K adjusted and 359K unadjusted, should have been adjusted in the same direction. And while the 390K claims print in 2012 was indeed a 10,000 drop from the prior week’s 400K, the unadjusted number instead of being an increase, was actually a drop, one of 44,768 jobs. How does this same “recurring” seasonal adjustment look further back – after all it is seasonal, so there should be some recurring logic for a specific time of the year? The answer is shown on the chart below.

In other words, the “same” adjustment that in the past was applied to an NSA weekly change that was a greater drop than the seasonally adjusted print, somehow in 2013 ended up having its sign flipped, and made the weekly spike in claims look much better than it actually was. For the exactly same week.

One wonders just what other goalseeking intentions (and directive) the BLS had when it ordered the Arima “adjustment” software to make such a radical departure in this specific week?

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/hI0YhJM-Rpk/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Unlike every other measure of consumer confidence, sentiment, or comfort, the ‘final’ UMich Consumer Confidence print recovered its “flash” collapse and managed to beat expectations. However, before the party streamers are broken out, this uptick leaves the confidence data the 2nd lowest since Jan 2013 – led by – drum roll please – the expectations for the future (which rose from a preliminary 62.3 to final 66.8). Perhaps troubling is the drop in inflation expectations – down to 2.9% year ahead, the lowest since Oct 2010. So unlike the rest of the surveys, UMich finds consumers more confident about the future but in the baffle-em-with-bullshit category, expecting disinflationary pressures to grow. Of course, there are seasonality factors – its the holidays nearly – and we note that the 75.1 print is lower than any Nov print from 2004-2008.

 

 

 

But this is a lot lower than confidence for this time of year compared to pre-crisis…

 

 

Charts: Bloomberg

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/RjanQzW8V3M/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Unlike every other measure of consumer confidence, sentiment, or comfort, the ‘final’ UMich Consumer Confidence print recovered its “flash” collapse and managed to beat expectations. However, before the party streamers are broken out, this uptick leaves the confidence data the 2nd lowest since Jan 2013 – led by – drum roll please – the expectations for the future (which rose from a preliminary 62.3 to final 66.8). Perhaps troubling is the drop in inflation expectations – down to 2.9% year ahead, the lowest since Oct 2010. So unlike the rest of the surveys, UMich finds consumers more confident about the future but in the baffle-em-with-bullshit category, expecting disinflationary pressures to grow. Of course, there are seasonality factors – its the holidays nearly – and we note that the 75.1 print is lower than any Nov print from 2004-2008.

 

 

 

But this is a lot lower than confidence for this time of year compared to pre-crisis…

 

 

Charts: Bloomberg

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/RjanQzW8V3M/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Well that escalated quickly. Having broken above $900 yesterday to new record highs (and a 100% gain in a week), the crypto currency is not looking back now. On what is higher than average volume this morning, Bitcoin just broke above the magic $1000 level for the first time (at $1025). Meanwhile, the BTC China “arb’d” rate is around $950 for those playing at home; and Litecoin has just topped $26 (from $4 a week ago!).

 

Bitcoin…

 

 

Litecoin…

 

 

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/kzA-bORRB4c/story01.htm Tyler Durden