Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Certainly doesn’t look like a big rally today. As of noon S&P up only slightly. DJI down. It is interesting to see that the 10-year has rapidly descended to near 4%.
Well, here's the thing: Trump can place all the henchmen he wants to be in charge of these government financial reporting agencies.
BUT: the people who work there will know damn straight if their work gets screwed with. And you can bet your life that "anonymous" info will be quickly sent to the outside press if anything like that happens. All that will take is just one anonymous report from the inside, and the WSJ will lead the charge. And even Trump should know that he can't bullshit that one through. The press cannons are primed, just waiting for the fuses to be lit.
His new head of the BLS didn't have any influence on the last dismal numbers release.
"Call me old-fashioned, but I’ve tried to give people selected for a president’s cabinet the benefit of the doubt until they show they don’t deserve it. That’s especially true for the office I held, because I know how challenging it can be.
Yet here’s what Trump’s Labor Secretary, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, whose labor department includes the Bureau of Labor Statistics, said yesterday about data it released showing that the U.S. economy added almost a million fewer jobs earlier this year and in 2024 than at first reported.
“Today’s massive downward revision gives the American people even more reason to doubt the integrity of data being published by BLS. Leaders at the bureau failed to improve their practices during the Biden administration, utilizing outdated methods that rendered a once reliable system completely ineffective and calling into question the motivation behind their inaction.”
Bullsh*t.
The revised data was released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as part of a longstanding annual process known as benchmarking. That process often results in substantial revisions to previous job numbers because it’s based on additional information available six months or more after the monthly reports.
The latest revision was not surprising. Most forecasters anticipated a substantial downward adjustment based on quarterly data released earlier this year."
The numbers on the S&P and 10-year treasury bond are probably accurate. Bond rates do have implications for many older investors who rely heavily on fixed income.
I regret posting the story. Bloomberg was being overly simplistic in attributing the record high S&P or falling interest rates to the BLS report. Not worth getting into a political dog fight. Will try to do better.
Comments
BUT: the people who work there will know damn straight if their work gets screwed with. And you can bet your life that "anonymous" info will be quickly sent to the outside press if anything like that happens. All that will take is just one anonymous report from the inside, and the WSJ will lead the charge. And even Trump should know that he can't bullshit that one through. The press cannons are primed, just waiting for the fuses to be lit.
His new head of the BLS didn't have any influence on the last dismal numbers release.
"Call me old-fashioned, but I’ve tried to give people selected for a president’s cabinet the benefit of the doubt until they show they don’t deserve it. That’s especially true for the office I held, because I know how challenging it can be.
Yet here’s what Trump’s Labor Secretary, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, whose labor department includes the Bureau of Labor Statistics, said yesterday about data it released showing that the U.S. economy added almost a million fewer jobs earlier this year and in 2024 than at first reported.
“Today’s massive downward revision gives the American people even more reason to doubt the integrity of data being published by BLS. Leaders at the bureau failed to improve their practices during the Biden administration, utilizing outdated methods that rendered a once reliable system completely ineffective and calling into question the motivation behind their inaction.”
Bullsh*t.
The revised data was released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as part of a longstanding annual process known as benchmarking. That process often results in substantial revisions to previous job numbers because it’s based on additional information available six months or more after the monthly reports.
The latest revision was not surprising. Most forecasters anticipated a substantial downward adjustment based on quarterly data released earlier this year."
I regret posting the story. Bloomberg was being overly simplistic in attributing the record high S&P or falling interest rates to the BLS report. Not worth getting into a political dog fight. Will try to do better.
I agree and fwiw I don't look at or consider them at all when investing. But from the evidence it appears as though pulling the strings do.