Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Justa & Lars Honors Bob Brinker Investment Club -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wally Mastroly who wrote (5586)	6/4/1999 9:07:00 AM
From: Jeffrey D	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15132

Wally, thanks for the information. Analysts expected 232,000 new jobs and there were only 11,000. One can only hope stock analysts are more accurate!<gg> You know, you just can't win with Bloomberg. Before announcement they run a story that with 232,000 new jobs expected this will pressure the Fed. to raise rates. quote.bloomberg.com Then, after the announcement of only 11,000 jobs created they run a story that this small increase shows small job market and this will then pressure employers to raise salaries to get new employees and to keep the ones they have. Well, gee, maybe the economy is slowing down and that is why employers didn't hire as many as the "experts" anticipated. quote.bloomberg.com Geez, Bloomberg is on a rate hike mindset regardless of the outcome. Wally, a question. Hourly rate goes up .05. What creates more potential for inflation? That increase or if the "experts" had been right and 232,000 new jobs created due to an expanding economy? Just asking. Jeff

To: Wally Mastroly who wrote (5586)	6/4/1999 10:35:00 AM
From: Justa Werkenstiff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15132

CIBCR Up fo May Bridge news is reporting that the CIBICR index rose to 105.9 for May from a revised 104.4 (was 105.5) for April. So we did go up this month which could indicate the fourth consecutive increase and a tendency for the Fed. to tighten according to Brinker. BUT was the rise significant AND does the fact that the April number was revised down indicate a break in the chain of consecutive increases from March and is the downward revision significant in and of itself? Need the March number. Developing....

To: Wally Mastroly who wrote (5586)	6/4/1999 9:21:00 PM
From: Investor2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15132

Thanks for the link. I found a couple of things interesting. First, "08:30 APRIL PAYROLLS REVISED TO 343,000 FROM 234,000 PREVIOUSLY." That seems like quite a large jump; the payroll number was actually much stronger than was reported a month ago. Second, "08:30 MAY UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FALLS TO 29-YEAR LOW 4.2%." How low can it go without causing inflation? Do I hear 4%?? 3.5%? 3%? On another subject, did you notice the interest rates today? quote.yahoo.com^TYX&d=1ym The 30 year T-bond is yielding just a shade under 6% -- the highest in more than a year. That's 125 basis points above the October lows. It always amazes me how people can forget about interest rates when stocks have just gone through such a huge bull run. I've seen that before. Was it in 1973? Best wishes, I2