>>Hm.
>>
>>Bruce, keep us informed? Those were good numbers but if there was a discrepency in the math then.....dishonesty is not good.
>
>Shall do, John.
>
>I should explain a bit further that the occasional OEUS data problems (as with my own PPI index), depend largely on sound reports from all the counties, states, and regional centers - and at least 50% of the past data problems can be traced down to lower levels of reporting problems such as states, or even a few very large counties (it only takes 1 or 2 big states having delayed employment reports finally assembled and released at one time, to throw the numbers off substantially, for example, and these delays can even be due to simple, honest factors such as weather problems).
>
>So typically, this is not anyone's intentional doing, but rather data-reporting delays (sometimes data-processing problems, sometimes weather problems, etc). That's why it's best to take these numbers seriously only over a period of months, and not just one month's big up or down motion. (Though Wall St is always very-quickly jumpy, no matter that they may know this already.)
>
>If there were any such factors as this, they will get "corrected" in the forthcoming month or two, most likely, or perhaps the latest big jump was the correction (in part) itself. (If you follow me here?) Then there are also official corrections released every month (for the prior month) for most monthly reports also, so we really need to wait on that also.
>
>As far as the early-release problem, that I don't know more about than what's in the news and rumors inside the gov't - it may have been just coincidence, or more likely to me, an inadvertant "overly enthusiastic prediction" by Administration Economic officials (Snow was shown on TV the night before giving such a prediction, in fact). It was very suspicious looking trading activity, but so obvious that I'm skeptical about anyone directly providing insider-trading info. It would be foolhardy, given all the big names on trial/convicted recently.
>
>It may have just been a gamble by traders, that they thought Snow (+BLS, and all the other DC econominc folks, I should add) was going to have better news at long last (it really was an overdue upward-move, after all the bad months, just a bigger jump than anyone expected), combined with other rosier economic news. But it is being looked into, to be safe. (I add this in case anyone interpreted what I first said wrongly)

Bruce;

There is something strange about the Stock Market and it seems to be the instantaneous reaction and inconsistency that is bothersome.

In 1982 the Stock Market went down on day and the rationalization was “the price of gold went up” The very next day the Stock Market again went down and the rationalization was “the price of gold went down.” You can’t win for losing!

It is amazing how the market reacts and how it is explained. Let us hope that the employment news is good for next month and the months to come. As for how the Market will react, that is anyone’s guess.

Tom