mother of all revisions / mutter aller revisionen

die usa sind nachdem was ich kennengelernt habe die meister in sachen statistikrevisionen. teilweise sind die zugrundeliegenden statistiken schon vorher so absurd das dieses einen nicht weiter interessieren sollte.

wenn nun aber wie im letzten monat passiert bei der wichtigsten aller statistiken, nämlich der us arbietsmarktstatistik zu der normalen monatlichen revision jetzt noch ne revision von historischem ausmaße auf jahressicht hinzukommt muß man sich doch wirkliich fragen warum diese marktbewegende statistik überhaupt noch für voll genommen wird.

lest bitte zuerst den monatlichen bericht vom oktober durch http://immobilienblasen.blogspot.com/2006/10/us-arbeitsmarktbericht.html und dann den rest der revision.

hier kommt die urpsrüngliche meldung:

Oct. 6 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Labor Department found employers hired almost a million more workers in the year to March than previously estimated, bringing job gains more in line with what households had been saying all along.

About 810,000 more jobs will be added to the payroll count when the figures are officially revised next February, the department estimated today. The proposed revision, the biggest since Labor started adjusting the numbers in 1991, would mean the economy created 2.6 million jobs from April 2005 through March instead of the 1.8 million now on the books.....

Once a year, the Labor Department revises its payroll figures after combing through tax records from the unemployment insurance program that covers practically all businesses. Those records are only available after a lag, explaining why it takes over a year to make the tabulations.

Lack of Response

The Labor Department said it is looking into why the expected revision this time around is three times larger than the average over the last decade. Part of the investigation involves determining whether the firms that are doing much of the hiring aren't responding to their survey, said Kirk Mueller, chief of national benchmarking and special projects at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Washington.

Another possibility is that the department's method of determining the formation and demise of businesses, called the birth/death model, may be faulty, he said.http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm (gute idee/very good idea....)

aufgrund des ausmaßes dieser revision die zufällig gerade rechtzeitig vor der nächsten wahl kommt habe ich hier verschiedenen meiningen zusammengetragen.

zuerst von mish:
Overcoming my initial speechlessness at the idea that we added 810,000 more jobs in the year to March 2005 to June 2005, I have several questions, five actually.

Five Questions

1.Assuming we did gain 810,000 jobs March to March, how does that affect the much ballyhooed productivity statistics? When will we see revisions?
2.Did it really take 810,000 more people working to produce a GDP that is barely above the stall rate?
3.If job expansion is so robust why are real wages falling?
4.Assuming we did gain those jobs exactly what was the distribution of those jobs over time?
5.What can we expect looking forward?........

Still More Questions

6.If the BLS was underestimating jobs created for March 2005 thru March 2006 by 810,000 then how much are they overestimating jobs by now if the economy has turned?
7.If the Fed is basing some of its interest rates decisions on jobs, just how far behind the curve were they in tightening and how far ahead of the curve are they now?
8.If the Fed was aware that the economy was 810,000 jobs stronger than everyone thought, when did they know it, and why didn't they comment on it?

die details zu den fragen
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/10/discrepancy-in-jobs.html

von barry ritholtz

An Absurdly Large Outlier in the History of BLS Revisions

Notable beneath the awful headline was the even more astounding adjustment: Payrolls for the 12 months ended in March 2006 will be revised higher by 810,000

Thanks to this adjustment, the BLS now claims that job growth during the 12 months ended in March 2006 was 45 percent higher than previously reported. The revision magically adds payroll employment growth between March 2005 and March 2006 up by a 67,500 per month.

the aggregate benchmark revisions dating back to 1996 added a whopping 1,555K jobs to the economy, 810K of which (52%) were added during April 2005-March 2006

The BLS has a benchmark restatement that is 300% of its 10 year average, and they announce: "We are looking into this."

ganze story http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/10/making_it_up_as.html

von tim http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/

The enormous size of the March 2006 preliminary benchmark revision calls into question the credibility of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in general, and the nonfarm payrolls report in particular. The increase in nonfarm payrolls for the 12 months ending in March of 2006 totaled 2.08 million, the birth/death model adjustments contributing over 800,000.

Now the BLS says there are an additional 810,000 jobs to be added, meaning that well over 50 percent of new jobs during this one-year span were not reported during the original survey period. This compares to less than 10 percent for the March 2005 benchmark revision. Something is seriously wrong somewhere at the BLS.

von eddie elfenbein http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/10/index.html

What’s the problem this time? It turns out the Labor Department said that the economy created only 51,000 new jobs last month. Now before you join in on the singing, bear in mind that this number will be revised next month. And again in the month after that. And if that’s not enough, sometime in 2017, the later revision of the earlier revision will be revised all over again. It might even lead someone, maybe a taxpayer, to wonder why we have a Labor Department in the first place.

Did I mention that the Labor Department somehow missed 810,000 new jobs created last year? Perhaps they were counting the Household survey. Or was that the Establishment survey? It gets a little confusing here. You see, not only do our labor surveys get revised umpteen times, but there are a few you can choose from.

ich persönlich empfinde die fragen die mish gestellt hat als sehr sehr wichtig an und sehe diese revision als unterm strich eher negativ an. wenn wirklich die ganzen jobs geschaffen worden sein sollen (großes fragezeichen!) dann zeigt das ganz klar das wenn man das gdp wachstum ins verhältnis stellt das die produktivitätskennziffern alle gen süden revidiert werden müssen.

bin gespannt ob das auch passieren wird.(dürfte ja den interessen der fed entgegenlaufen und einen weiteren teil des angeblichen produktivitätswunders entzaubern...)

da ich nach wie vor überzeugt bin das die usa in ne immobiliengeführte rezession gleiten werden dürfte das rückschlagspotential im jobsektor jetzt sogar noch größer sein.

wenn man jetzt bedenket wie hyterisch die märkte auf diese monatlichen veröffentlichungen reagieren kann man nur noch mit dem kopf schütteln......