I've seen quite a few sailors with WW2 tats on their arms, that look like smudge pots after 60 years, many women in particular are going to be ashamed of what they did to their bodies...
Talking about doing weird stuff to your body, I wonder what becomes of Agent Orange?
Yes, to revive a discussion, how many estimates have come back revised beyond their 90% confidence interval?
See, that's the $64,000 question in my mind, as it pretty much determines whether we can/should place any faith in the data we're given. The credibility of the gov't is pretty much on the line at that point.
Washington hasn't been able to milk the taxpayers sufficiently to finance its massive deficit. The Chinese are getting skittish as well. So tapping bank deposits is yet another avenue to a big pot of cash. As for the bankers, they've been awarded an easy life. Thanks to the Fed's zero interest-rate policy, they can make a decent profit on "safe" Treasury and agency securities yielding 3% or more. The too-big-to-fail banks like Citi and Bank of America can draw on their big shareholder, the U.S. Treasury, if their capital needs further supplements. Bankers don't have to worry about making risk judgments because they've been ordered to not take risks. So maybe the Fed is justified in cutting their salaries, since whatever banking skills they had—meaning the ability to assess risk—are no longer needed or wanted. An office boy could buy government bonds.
If you had been shorting RBS because all the public information told you it was going down how do you feel now about finding out that material data was not only withheld but withheld with the cooperation of the British government?
Gee, I wonder why our Fed Reserve is resisting an audit?
Be Wary Of The Housing Numbers
Joshua Zumbrun, 11.23.09, 06:25 PM EST
The improvement is part genuine, part government stimulus and part seasonal confusion.
"This was a much better than expected report but we really shouldn't start to believe the housing market is in great shape again," says Naroff. The threat of rising foreclosures, of continuing job loss, and continued uncertainty all still threaten to undermine the housing recovery......
All the housing data are likely to be especially sensitive to unusual seasonal activity. Perhaps the most volatile indicator is the level of new home construction, which plunges in the winter. At its still-depressed levels, even small changes can cause big swings in the data. "The simple joke version of that statement: if someone decides to build an extra house in Rochester in December that might double production," says Chuck Lieberman, the chief investment officer for Advisors Capital Management.
The S&PCaseShiller Home Price Index for September came in at 146.5, which in-line with the 146.9 that was widely expected. Meanwhile, the 20-city composite for September fell 9.4%, which is worse than the 9.1% decline that many had expected. The latest downturn follows an 11.3% decline in September. Briefing.com: Stock Market Update
Here's an interesting tidbit from the BEA report's section on corporate profits (thanks to CR for linking the source):
Domestic profits of financial corporations increased $97.0 billion in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of $28.5 billion in the second. Domestic profits of nonfinancial corporations increased $12.9 billion in the third quarter, compared with an increase of $29.8 billion in the second.
That seems a bit skewed, eh? (Emphasis added by me.)
P.S. Recall that in the old days, when fundamental valuation analysis for stocks was the basis for price, one could write a nice little identity for the valuation of a broad market index (S&P 500, or better, the total stock market index):
Index = (Price/Earnings) * (Earnings/GDP) * GDP.
The Price/Earnings ratio was generally bounded in the range of ~6 (deep bear markets) to ~20, so the Index was driven by GDP and Earnings/GDP. Earnings/GDP hit a historic high in 2007 (as reported in e.g. "National Economic Trends" from the St. Louis Fed, under "Corporate Profits as a share of GDP"). The data above suggest that Earnings/GDP is rebouncing again.
In fact, for a $14T economy, 1% GDP growth (within a quarter) is about $140B/4 = $35B, and 3% growth in a quarter is therefore $105B. But we see that in the 3rd quarter Corporate Profits increased by $110B.
Bottom line?
ALL of the 3rd Quarter GDP growth apparently went to the increase in Corporate Profits!
According to St. Louis Fed's National Economic Trends, "corporate profits" hit almost 14% of GDP in 2007, vs. historical norm near 8-9% (e.g. in 1980s). Corporate profits have been looking like Mortgage Pig, with a peak at 12% in 1997, then a rewind to the 8-9% level at the trough in the 2001 dot-com recession. Corporate profits since 2007 have fallen back to 9% about a year ago, but have rebounced to at least 10% since, and with the latest growth in the BEA report (1% of GDP in Q3 alone) I expect to see an 11% print. But is this a V-shaped profit recovery, or a dead-cat bounce? (Also there's the "shrinking denominator" effect of the drop in GDP playing into the profits-to-GDP ratio bouncing up.)
I saw the biggest CRE contractor in our county in the salt mine a few weeks ago for a small problem. He and I are friends, and for all intents and purposes, no one would realize he's in any problems whatsoever. As we normally do, we talked the economy and what lies ahead. He admitted he's probably going BK the first of the year. Bad timing on his latest development is going to sink him. Our group talked 8 months ago about buying a parcel in the development, and decided against it. He is up against it...
We need someone to hack the BEA and release their e-mails showing how they intentionally inflated the GDP for green shootsies. There's no other way to explain a 20% correction in a single revision, except that they were intentionally cooking the books.
Gotta lower the bar so there can be a massive beat next quarter.
investment in nonresidential structures was revised down to -15.1% from -9.0%.
----Yeeeehaw!
thats an eyepopper for sure.
I don't remember the preliminary estimate coming with a ±25% error band.
apparatchica N-N,
I've seen quite a few sailors with WW2 tats on their arms, that look like smudge pots after 60 years, many women in particular are going to be ashamed of what they did to their bodies...
Talking about doing weird stuff to your body, I wonder what becomes of Agent Orange?
HomeGnome wrote:
Damn, that's a big correction!
I spent 14Trillion and all I got was this lousy 2.8% GDP.
Rob Dawg wrote:
Ha. Wait til they adjust the employment numbers down from the B/D model early next year. Fugly!
Mr Slippery wrote:
Eh... here.... let me show you the spin: "That's just a one-time adjustment, and not at all representative of the true health of the labor market"
Mr Slippery wrote:
-846,000 and I'll still look for the under (worse).
Rob Dawg wrote:
Where the headless chickens dies is never that sure.
investment in nonresidential structures was revised down to -15.1% from -9.0%.
...Well, it is a good thing the CRE bust is almost over...otherwise a statistic like that might be cause for worry....
We are having some interesting numbers come out this quarter...
The banks had 5/6 less reserves than they did, the previous quarter.
Investment in nonresidential structures (CRE) is 60% less last quarter, after revising the numbers.
These are bombshells, folks.
Yes, to revive a discussion, how many estimates have come back revised beyond their 90% confidence interval?
RBS, HBOS Got 62 Billion-Pound Central Bank Loan (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
The operations were kept secret until now to prevent unnerving markets.
Bruce in Tennessee wrote:
Like the stock market, the architectural billings predicts 6 months in the future: AIA: Architecture Billings Index Shows Contraction
Right?
The banks had 5/6 less reserves than they did, the previous quarter.
JD,
Enlighten me with some specifics please.
The operations were kept secret to allow insiders to sell into the rally.
There, fixed if for ya...
energyecon wrote:
See, that's the $64,000 question in my mind, as it pretty much determines whether we can/should place any faith in the data we're given. The credibility of the gov't is pretty much on the line at that point.
,rad Angry,
It happened about a week ago, CR reported on it.
I was shocked, shocked, shocked, when my eyes saw how much we were in hock, hock, hock.
spunkmeyer
isnt credibility gov an oxymoron?
"The credibility of the gov't is pretty much on the line at that point. "
Looks like someone has some catching up to do...
Government Deficits and Private Growth
Future living standards will take a hit as federal borrowing balloons and bank lending to business shrinks.
Hell To Pay wrote:
I mean w/ the general population, not CR! The point at which
is a bi-partisan effort.
Talking about doing weird stuff to your body, I wonder what becomes of Agent Orange?
Chlor-organic compounds are teratogenic. That is, they produce birth defects if not outright fetal death.
If you had been shorting RBS because all the public information told you it was going down how do you feel now about finding out that material data was not only withheld but withheld with the cooperation of the British government?
Gee, I wonder why our Fed Reserve is resisting an audit?
energyecon wrote:
These guys are trying to create their own reality, not to report on the one that already exists-
Spunkmeyer wrote:
Seven out, line away. Pay the Don't, and last Comes.
,rad pavel,
I was thinking of Le Tan Orange, not the herbicide.
Case-Shiller home price index falls 8.9% in Q3
Be Wary Of The Housing Numbers
Joshua Zumbrun, 11.23.09, 06:25 PM EST
The improvement is part genuine, part government stimulus and part seasonal confusion.
Cinco-X wrote:
Trying? Trying? They've succeeded. Look at the stock markets in the month since the 3.5% good news. +4%.
I smell C-S flavored bacon.
NABE Survey: Recovery Won't Remain Jobless Very Much Longer -- Seeking Alpha
i figure this will fit good on this thread
Pig juggling ought to be banned.
The S&PCaseShiller Home Price Index for September came in at 146.5, which in-line with the 146.9 that was widely expected. Meanwhile, the 20-city composite for September fell 9.4%, which is worse than the 9.1% decline that many had expected. The latest downturn follows an 11.3% decline in September.
Briefing.com: Stock Market Update
Honestly, I keep waiting for CR to make charts with 'revised' and 'unrevised' lines so that we can have a more appropriate historical reference.
When China gets caught, I mean, posts actual numbers...
Dawg beat me to it. 20% is way beyond the % error and were I in economics/stats class and turned in an estimate with a 20% error, I'd have flunked.
So going forward, adjust everything downwards by 20% when you hear it.
Shameful.
When statistics becomes a game of post-dated charades, their game is just about over...
No, when the post-dated estimates are revealed to be that bad, then I think that the game is close to being on...
Potemkin University offers Economics degrees?
Rob Dawg wrote:
I never said that they were unsuccessful-
,rad hd43,
What sort of game are you playing, exactly?
NateTG wrote:
It might be best to keep that data diffused to avoid unwanted attention-
Here's an interesting tidbit from the BEA report's section on corporate profits (thanks to CR for linking the source):
That seems a bit skewed, eh? (Emphasis added by me.)
P.S. Recall that in the old days, when fundamental valuation analysis for stocks was the basis for price, one could write a nice little identity for the valuation of a broad market index (S&P 500, or better, the total stock market index):
Index = (Price/Earnings) * (Earnings/GDP) * GDP.
The Price/Earnings ratio was generally bounded in the range of ~6 (deep bear markets) to ~20, so the Index was driven by GDP and Earnings/GDP. Earnings/GDP hit a historic high in 2007 (as reported in e.g. "National Economic Trends" from the St. Louis Fed, under "Corporate Profits as a share of GDP"). The data above suggest that Earnings/GDP is rebouncing again.
In fact, for a $14T economy, 1% GDP growth (within a quarter) is about $140B/4 = $35B, and 3% growth in a quarter is therefore $105B. But we see that in the 3rd quarter Corporate Profits increased by $110B.
Bottom line?
ALL of the 3rd Quarter GDP growth apparently went to the increase in Corporate Profits!
Take THAT, Main Street!
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
I'm up for a few rounds of "pitchforks and pikeheads."
Goldman/AIG Conspiracy Theories: There’s a Reason They Won’t Go Away « naked capitalism
,rad Dawgma,
I'd never heard of Regent University ever referred to as Potemkin University, very witty.
Cinco-X wrote:
get Denninger to do it
re: keeping revised v estimated diffused--get Denninger to post a chart showing the revisions, he loves that shit
Sorry for the duplicate post! (Then again, I think that one's worth reading twice!)
PDS alert: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/net/page21.pdf
According to St. Louis Fed's National Economic Trends, "corporate profits" hit almost 14% of GDP in 2007, vs. historical norm near 8-9% (e.g. in 1980s). Corporate profits have been looking like Mortgage Pig, with a peak at 12% in 1997, then a rewind to the 8-9% level at the trough in the 2001 dot-com recession. Corporate profits since 2007 have fallen back to 9% about a year ago, but have rebounced to at least 10% since, and with the latest growth in the BEA report (1% of GDP in Q3 alone) I expect to see an 11% print. But is this a V-shaped profit recovery, or a dead-cat bounce? (Also there's the "shrinking denominator" effect of the drop in GDP playing into the profits-to-GDP ratio bouncing up.)
Rob:
I saw the biggest CRE contractor in our county in the salt mine a few weeks ago for a small problem. He and I are friends, and for all intents and purposes, no one would realize he's in any problems whatsoever. As we normally do, we talked the economy and what lies ahead. He admitted he's probably going BK the first of the year. Bad timing on his latest development is going to sink him. Our group talked 8 months ago about buying a parcel in the development, and decided against it. He is up against it...
B in T
volker the viking wrote:
Good idea! He seems to enjoy the attention-
http://raphaelkahan.blogspot.com/2009/11/us-gdp-forecast-update.html
We need someone to hack the BEA and release their e-mails showing how they intentionally inflated the GDP for green shootsies. There's no other way to explain a 20% correction in a single revision, except that they were intentionally cooking the books.
So what's the second revision going to be? 2%?