Anonymous writes:
The waters fine come on in.
Anonymous | 03.20.08 - 9:05 am | #

Tom Stone writes:
6 AM and 96 visitors.should be a lively day...
Tom Stone | 03.20.08 - 9:06 am | #

REBear writes:
Any idea where oil and gold money is going? or is it just deleveraging?
REBear | 03.20.08 - 9:16 am | #

ac writes:

If these are typical Americans who haven't been saving, it's going to be really tough getting laid off right now. Or if they have their savings in gold.

  Tent City
  Population: YOU

ac | 03.20.08 - 9:16 am | #

jim a writes:
Hmm.. a large degree of "sawtoothiness," to that graph. Does that hold true for earlier recessions as well? Not only is it coincident but there have been a few "head fakes," where claims went up rapidly but a recession was never declared.
jim a | 03.20.08 - 9:17 am | #

Anonymous writes:
ATTN:

Please refrain from using the 'S' word.

Please.
Anonymous | 03.20.08 - 9:19 am | #

TheFinancialNinja writes:
Massive De-leveraging Slams Commodities
TheFinancialNinja | Homepage | 03.20.08 - 9:27 am | #

Bob Dobbs writes:
CR says:

"Notice that following the previous two recessions, weekly unemployment claims stayed high for a couple of years after the official recession ended - suggesting the weakness in the labor market lingered. The same will probably be true for the current recession (probable)."

In the 80s and 90s, I always worked straight through recessions and slowdowns; I was only laid off after the recession was officially declared "over."
Bob Dobbs | Homepage | 03.20.08 - 9:30 am | #

Anonymous writes:
http://www.reuters.com/article/m...?rpc=44& sp=true

UPDATE 1-US financial crisis is over, says Punk Ziegel's Bove

" The U.S. financial crisis is over but problems facing the economy are not, said Richard Bove, financial analyst with broker Punk Ziegel, adding that this was a "once in a generation" opportunity to buy bank stocks."

Specific Lie: Aug-Sept 1998 was less than a generation ago, problems were not as deep, and the LTCM band-aid provided the best opportunity to buy bank stocks (a much, much better opportunity than the giant risk today). Now, the problems are unresolved while the outlook is much worse. Only solution is Dick Bove is lying his ass off for some hidden reason.

Conclusion: Punk Ziegel must be in deleveraging hell.

Bye, Bye, Dick Bove!!
Anonymous | 03.20.08 - 9:31 am | #

Anonymous writes:
""The actions taken by the Federal Reserve were innovative, dramatic, and, in my view, brilliant because they went right to the problem," he said."

Dick apparently hasn't much math skills:

$2 trillion in losses is far greater than the $800 billion in assets.
Anonymous | 03.20.08 - 9:34 am | #

Anonymous writes:
And Bob Pisani, CNBC whore du jour, just cheered the Dick Bove headline, with a "Go, Richard!"

Are there really any suckers still believing those slimy crooks?
Anonymous | 03.20.08 - 9:38 am | #

Keep It Simple, I'm Stupid writes:
Specific Lie: Aug-Sept 1998 was less than a generation ago,

Financial analysts have the memories of fruit flies. It's been a lot of generations since 1998.
Keep It Simple, I'm Stupid | Homepage | 03.20.08 - 9:50 am | #

REBear writes:
Congress begins to probe Bear Stearns' sale

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/...7D& siteid=yhoof

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who heads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wants to take a closer look at what the potential taxpayer exposure may be, the paper reported, citing an unnamed aide to the congressman.
REBear | 03.20.08 - 10:09 am | #

Sebastian writes:
Chart malpractice, again.

Look at CR's chart.

In 2005 there was a sharp upward spike in unemployment claims, to an even higher level than the current one. Why didn't that signal lead to a "probable recession"?

In 1995-96 unemployment claims were as high or higher than now and remained persistently high. Why wasn't *that* an indicator of "probable recession"?

This is no way to use an indicator, for anyone who's really making an attempt to illuminate an issue. You count up the total number of signals, the number of times they were "right", the number of false signals, then decide if the indicator is valid or not.


Sebastian
Sebastian | 03.20.08 - 10:13 am | #

ken melvin writes:
Meaningless. The BLS is meaningless. Deliberately so.
ken melvin | 03.20.08 - 10:20 am | #

Kp writes:
I can look at the chart, and following the 4-week-avg as it moves through the last 10 years and remember that the assertion of 350k claims as the dividing line between active job market and dead market is absolutely true in my own experience. I graduated college in Dec 2002 to a job market that was rough as all get out. It wasn't until Q1 2004 that I was able to find DECENT work in my field.

I can also concur that recently...although my locale is lagging the rest of the nation's slowdown due to energy business concentration...the opportunities are slowly but surely dropping off of careerbuilder.
Kp | 03.20.08 - 10:21 am | #

Kp writes:
Keep It Simple, I'm Stupid writes:
Specific Lie: Aug-Sept 1998 was less than a generation ago,

Financial analysts have the memories of fruit flies. It's been a lot of generations since 1998.
Keep It Simple, I'm Stupid | Homepage | 03.20.08 - 9:50 am

As an analyst I would liken my own memory more to a.....

I'm sorry what were we talking about again?
Kp | 03.20.08 - 10:24 am | #

Lynn Gray writes:
The UI claims report is not from BLS. It comes from ETA (another part of the DOL).
Lynn Gray | 03.20.08 - 11:19 am | #

lawn grass writes:
Interesting interview about the mortgage security thingy. A layman might understand this. No spreadsheet needed.

http://www.npr.org/templates/ sto...toryId=88650786
lawn grass | 03.20.08 - 11:26 am | #

Leodegar writes:
Hi Sebastian,

Yes, there was a spike in 2005. Do you remember some kind of windy storm thing? What was it called--KATRINA?

So, looking at CR's graph, I don't see any other spikes in UI claim that didn't result in a recession that weren't related to huge cat 5 hurricanes. I haven't seen any cat 5 hurricanes washing ashore in the past 2 months, so I'm ready to believe the chart.

How dare you accuse CR of 'chart malpractice'. Shame on you.
Leodegar | 03.20.08 - 12:03 pm | #

Tom writes:
Actually jobless claims tend to be a coincident/forward looking indicator towards the economy, while the payroll data actually tends to be a lagging/coincident indicator. Point being jobless claims above 350K, not a good sign for the coming months.

-Tom
Tom | Homepage | 03.20.08 - 1:00 pm | #

JLR writes:
Why is 350k considered the line in the sand?
JLR | 03.20.08 - 1:02 pm | #

JLR writes:
Whoops, didn't finish...an eyeball of the chart provided points to 400K as a better gauge as it excludes 1995, 1998, and Katrina (only a cat 3 when it hit the US, btw).
JLR | 03.20.08 - 1:07 pm | #

jg writes:
Nice chart, sir.

I believe.

Now, just give us the accompanying stock market drop.
jg | 03.20.08 - 3:50 pm | #