imported post
I know a lot of you are up and around a lot earlier than I am so you probably read today's market comments. I made a couple of late updates this morning to the 7/11/05 comments. Here is most of that update...
About that lower than expected jobs report; Jason Goepfert at sentimentrader.com tells us this:
"...one of the worst things for the bulls to see would be a positive market reaction to a positive jobs number surprise. Well, we got one of each, as the market had a very good day off a worse-than-expected payroll report. Since the beginning of 2002, there have been 5 other instances of the S&P gaining 10 points on a day the jobs report came in less than expected. 5 days later, the S&P was an average of 15 points lower, with 3 of the 5 being negative (all from 2002). 30 days later, 4 out of the 5 were negative (including occurrences from 2004 and 2005), and the average loss in the S&P was 25 points. If we relax the parameters a bit and just look at any time when the S&P gained 5 points or more on the day of the jobs report (no matter if there was a positive or negative payroll number), then since the beginning of 2004 the S&P was negative 30 days later 5 of 6 times. The tendency of the market has been to reverse the initial reaction to these jobs numbers, and it is a consistent enough tendency to garner our attention." - Jason Goepfert
I know a lot of you are up and around a lot earlier than I am so you probably read today's market comments. I made a couple of late updates this morning to the 7/11/05 comments. Here is most of that update...
About that lower than expected jobs report; Jason Goepfert at sentimentrader.com tells us this:
"...one of the worst things for the bulls to see would be a positive market reaction to a positive jobs number surprise. Well, we got one of each, as the market had a very good day off a worse-than-expected payroll report. Since the beginning of 2002, there have been 5 other instances of the S&P gaining 10 points on a day the jobs report came in less than expected. 5 days later, the S&P was an average of 15 points lower, with 3 of the 5 being negative (all from 2002). 30 days later, 4 out of the 5 were negative (including occurrences from 2004 and 2005), and the average loss in the S&P was 25 points. If we relax the parameters a bit and just look at any time when the S&P gained 5 points or more on the day of the jobs report (no matter if there was a positive or negative payroll number), then since the beginning of 2004 the S&P was negative 30 days later 5 of 6 times. The tendency of the market has been to reverse the initial reaction to these jobs numbers, and it is a consistent enough tendency to garner our attention." - Jason Goepfert