Diese Seite mit anderen teilen ...

Informationen zum Thema:
Forum:
Warrants.ch Warrants-Talk
Beiträge im Thema:
10
Erster Beitrag:
vor 14 Jahren, 9 Monaten
Letzter Beitrag:
vor 10 Jahren, 11 Monaten
Beteiligte Autoren:
Johnny, Richebourg, Stratege, svx_biker, Warranti, whoi, mz

Arbeitslosenzahlen USA

Startbeitrag von Johnny am 07.02.2003 12:12

Was denkt Ihr, wenn die Arbeitslosenzahlen um 14.30 über den Erwartungen liegen, geht der SMI / Dax nach oben ab?
Ich habe das Gefühl, beide seien in Wartestellung, um bei einer positiven Meldung abzugehen.

Antworten:

Sehe ich auch so.

mz

von mz - am 07.02.2003 12:19
Sicher, aber wenn diese Zahlen unterhalb der Prognosen ausfallen, dann wîrd die Reaktion doppelt so stark ausfallen, wie bei einer innerhalb der Prognosen!

von Richebourg - am 07.02.2003 12:25
Wie ist der aktuelle Stand und die Erartungen?

von Johnny - am 07.02.2003 12:30
Unemployment stabil bei 6 % und new jobs created + 60-70'000 .

So jetzt hab' ich Zeit fürs Mittagessen!

von Richebourg - am 07.02.2003 12:37
Zahlen müssen gut gewesen sein, bitte melden wenn bekannt.

von Stratege - am 07.02.2003 13:34
WASHINGTON (AFX) - Le taux de chômage aux Etats-Unis a atteint 5,7%
en janvier, contre 6% en décembre, et l'économie américaine a créé 143.000
emplois nets le mois dernier, a annoncé vendredi le département du Travail.
pre/vdr

von Stratege - am 07.02.2003 13:35
ich kann nicht nachvollziehen, dass der Markt eine solche Zahl als wichtig annimmt!

"The U.S. jobless rate fell to 5.7 percent in January from 6 percent in December as businesses added about 143,000 workers, the Labor Department said Friday. It was the strongest job growth since November 2000, but the number may overstate the pace of actual hiring in the economy. Excluding the 101,000 jobs added in retail, the economy added 42,000 jobs in January. Average hourly earnings were flat. Total hours worked in the economoy rose 0.3 percent, the first gain since October. The goods-producing industries showed no job losses for the first time in 27 months."

Aha neben den 101'000 aus dem RETAIL (Einzelhandel) wurden bloss 42'000 neue Jobs geschaffen und das überzeugt mich nicht dann weniger, auch wenn der Konsens bei 65'000 Total mehr als doppelt übetroffen wurde.
à propos:


"In an economy that eliminated 181,000 jobs in 2002 and 1.4 million in 2001, any growth at all would be welcome news."

Sorry dass ich den ganzen Artikel hier reinkopiere, aber das musste mal gesagt werden: (Glaube keiner Statistik die du nicht selbst gefälscht hast.)
"It would be best to focus on the January jobs data excluding the retail sector," said Tony Crescenzi, chief bond market strategist at Miller Tabak. "The market response will likely be dictated by this measure rather than the headline data."
When the government reports its monthly numbers, it adjusts them for seasonal factors to allow economists and us interested amateurs to see underlying trends more clearly. But sometimes the seasonal adjustments serve only to cloud the issue.
For instance, retail hiring typically soars in November and December as retail outlets get ready for the holiday rush. The seasonally adjusted government data tries to smooth out that seasonal bump, so that normal seasonal hiring would appear as zero job growth in the reported data.
But if the normal seasonal patterns are disrupted, the number becomes distorted. That's what happened this year.
From early in the fall, retailers knew the holiday sales season would be weak and so they adjusted their hiring accordingly.
Signs of a slow season were everywhere. Consumers were buying cars, not clothing, books and jewelry. Income growth was slowing and debt levels were getting too high. And consumers have been very bargain-conscious, so retailers knew they couldn't make up the expected low volumes with higher prices.
In November, retailers actually hired 298,000 more workers, but the seasonal adjustment expected about 338,000, so the seasonally adjusted figure showed a loss of 40,000.
That 40,000 "loss" was a big reason why non-farm payrolls fell by 88,000 in November.
The story was the same in December. Retailers actually hired 162,000 more workers, but the seasonal adjustment turned that into a 104,000 decline, accounting for all of December's non-farm payroll loss of 101,000.
The employment situation looked a lot worse in November and December than it really was, but now it'll start to look a lot better, because the seasonal factors will now expect all those seasonal workers who were never hired in December to be laid off in January.
Of course, if they were never hired in the first place, they won't show up in the data as layoffs. So while January's numbers may look on the bright side, the labor market is really stuck in the doldrums.
Flat job growth"Really, we'll have three months of flat job numbers," said John Ryding, chief market economist at Bear Stearns. Ryding is expecting a gain of 110,000 in January's payroll numbers.
Flat job growth isn't great news, but at least it would mean that "payrolls didn't decline in any meaningful way" over the holiday season, Ryding said.
The jobs report comes from two separate surveys. The payrolls number comes from a survey of more than 300,000 establishments. The unemployment rate comes from a survey of about 60,000 households.
The jobless rate topped at 6 percent in December, matching an 8-year high. A few economists believe the rate spiked higher to 6.1 percent in January.
The jobless rate would be much higher, except nearly 2 million people have dropped out of the workforce in the past year, many because they are too discouraged to entertain any hope of finding a job.
In addition to the 8.6 million Americans classified officially as unemployed, there are 4.4 million who say they want to work, but aren't looking.
There are some indications that the jobs market is slowly recuperating. Initial jobless claims have been falling toward the 350,000 weekly level that Ryding says would begin to bring down the jobless rate, now at 6 percent.
In addition, hiring for temporary jobs has been increasing along with the average workweek; both are signs that the slack is disappearing.
Executives in the non-manufacturing sectors told the Institute for Supply Management in January that temp help is in short supply."

Das Problem liegt wohl darin, dass die Märkte in der aktuellen Verfassung (=Ungewissheit/Unsicherheit) nach jedem Strohhalm greifen----

von whoi - am 07.02.2003 13:55
genau, das kann von einer stunde zur anderen wieder kehren
zu viel hope and hipe

Warranti

von Warranti - am 07.02.2003 13:57
07. Februar 2003

von svx_biker - am 28.12.2006 18:09
Zur Information:
MySnip.de hat keinen Einfluss auf die Inhalte der Beiträge. Bitte kontaktieren Sie den Administrator des Forums bei Problemen oder Löschforderungen über die Kontaktseite.
Falls die Kontaktaufnahme mit dem Administrator des Forums fehlschlägt, kontaktieren Sie uns bitte über die in unserem Impressum angegebenen Daten.