How about that market?

[89th]

Haha predictable.

[George K]

@89th said in How about that market?:

Haha predictable.

Yeah, of course it was.

[Mik]

The exception would prove the rule, if there would ever happen to be one.

I won’t hold my breath.

[jon-nyc]

Oops

[Axtremus]

@jon-nyc said in How about that market?:

Oops

Yeah, saw that one. It’s an unusual, fast changing situation. At this point, I quite believe that there is no malice, and the BLS is doing the best it can.

[jon-nyc]

Yeah, for sure.

[Loki]

@jon-nyc said in How about that market?:

Oops

God that article sucks in so many ways. What a disgrace.

[89th]

Now we just need an article blaming common core math.

[George K]

What am I missing here?

The percentage they reported was an error. I get that.

But the absolutions number of jobs did increase, right?

[Horace]

@George-K said in How about that market?:

What am I missing here?

The percentage they reported was an error. I get that.

But the absolute number of jobs did increase, right?

Yes. The real numbers were about half as much of an improvement as the wrong numbers were.

Edit: I mean the difference between predictions and the real numbers was about half as good. I'm not sure about absolute job numbers, but unemployment did go up.

[Horace]

“You can 100% discount the possibility that Trump got to the BLS. Not 98% discount, not 99.9% discount, but 100% discount,” tweeted Jason Furman, the former top economist for former president Barack Obama. “BLS has 2,400 career staff of enormous integrity and one political appointee with no scope to change this number.”

I think it's a legitimate concern that Trump falsified these job numbers.

[jon-nyc]

I don’t.

[Horace]

I can understand how a rigorous risk analysis of all the factors and potentials involved would indicate a higher chance of Trump usurping the presidency after a legitimate election loss, than Trump fudging the jobs report.

[Loki]

The market had baked in the correction Friday. The story is bogus.

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in How about that market?:

I can understand how a rigorous risk analysis of all the factors and potentials involved would indicate a higher chance of Trump usurping the presidency after a legitimate election loss, than Trump fudging the jobs report.

Yep. Both on the incentives and the mechanisms available.

[Horace]

The tail risk analysis science has spoken. Maybe Taleb is finding a way to bet on 20 years of president Trump as we speak. Or maybe he's betting that Trump fudged the jobs report, only at way higher odds.

[LuFins Dad]

@jon-nyc said in How about that market?:

Down a little more than that, but I can't tell for sure because I didn't mark the 2/19 high. I only save monthly snapshots. I'm down 4.2% from my peak month-end, which was 12/31.

So I finally checked, I’m actually up 12.6% over my peak (12/31 too).

[jon-nyc]

Wow, some good timing on purchases or rebalancing?

[LuFins Dad]

Nothing intentional, though I did put a little into RBGLY (Lysol) in March. They normally trade at $17, but for some reason had dropped to $12 in March. I figured their revenues were going to be through the roof, so why not?) they are trading at $17 again, so that was nice but I didn’t put much in. Mostly the increase was because 12 months ago I shifted to a more aggressive mix and for whatever reason, they’ve recovered exceptionally well since my 12 month low on 3/31.

[Larry]

@jon-nyc said in How about that market?:

Oops

Lets see...

The Washington Post, a rag known for consistently publishing fake news, posts a tweet before the jobs report had even come out claiming the unemployment rate was 20%. Then the jobs report comes out and the unemployment rate actually dropped, and was just over 13%. New jobs bounced higher than even the most optimistic predictions, the Washington Post quickly removes the tweet, then publishes a story about how the report was wrong and the unemployment rate was actually ....20%..

Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaa

Want to buy a bridge in London???

BWWWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA