|
Retail sales (Jan) -After declines of 1.6 percent in September, 3.4 percent in October, 2.1 percent in No-
<br /> vember, and 2.7 percent in December, January 2009 is likely to show a considerably smaller drop, maybe
<br /> on the order of one-half to 1 percent. Yet,the January number is likely to be somewhat misleading be-
<br /> cause a few stores like Wal-Mart did reasonably well compared with the performance of many other re-
<br /> tailers.
<br /> Business inventories and sales (Dec) -In November, business inventories dropped 0.7 percent, as com-
<br /> panies tried to limit their excess inventories in a very ugly economic period. We expect to see the same
<br /> thing show up in December and would not be surprised if the inventory figure is down around 1 percent.
<br /> Friday-February 13th:
<br /> University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey(Feb-p) - We would not be surprised if there is a
<br /> bit of an improvement in the preliminary February survey because of some guarded hope about the up-
<br /> coming economic stimulation package. In January, the final number was 61.2. In early February, the
<br /> number may be in the 63.0 to 66.0 range.
<br /> Weekly Commentary-
<br /> The employment stats for January were not much different from what was expected. Supposedly
<br /> (notice that we did not say actually), non-farm employment declined 598,000 on a seasonally adjusted
<br /> basis, of which-supposedly- 111,000 was in construction, 207,000 was in manufacturing,and 279,000
<br /> was in services. Also-supposedly-hours worked were unchanged at 33.3, the hourly earnings rate rose
<br /> five cents to $18.46, and weekly earnings rose $1.67 to $614.72. Finally, the unemployment rate for
<br /> January-supposedly-was 7.56 percent, up from 7.20 percent in December.
<br /> If you get the impression that we don't trust the accuracy of the data, you are absolutely right. The
<br /> employment numbers for 2008 were revised by so much that the data as originally published have proven
<br /> to be both grossly inaccurate and misleading. Yet, there are still many in the market who get all excited
<br /> when the original release is a few thousand off from what was expected.
<br /> If you think that we are overstating the nature of the garbage nature of the data, look at the following
<br /> table, which shows the original employment numbers published for each month in 2008 and the latest re-
<br /> visions:
<br /> -Employment Revisions Since January 2008-
<br /> Month Original Revised Difference
<br /> Jan - 17,000 - 72,000 - 55,000
<br /> Feb - 63,000 - 144,000 - 81,000
<br /> Mar - 80,000 - 122,000 - 42,000
<br /> Apr - 20,000 - 160,000 - 140,000
<br /> May - 49,000 - 137,000 - 88,000
<br /> Jun - 62,000 - 161,000 - 99,000
<br /> Jul - 51,000 - 128,000 - 77,000
<br /> Aug - 84,000 - 175,000 - 91,000
<br /> Sep - 159,000 - 321,000 - 162,000
<br /> Oct - 240,000 - 380,000 - 140,000
<br /> Nov - 533,000 - 597,000 - 64,000
<br /> • Dec - 524,000 - 577,000 - 53,000
<br /> Total -1,882,000 -2,974,000 -1,092,000
<br />
|