저자: JeremySiegel · 외국인
요약 보기
BLS 고용통계 응답률이 약 60%로 낮아 신뢰성이 떨어지며, 큰 오류 설명과 제도 개선이 필요하다고 주장. 약한 고용지표를 7월에 알았다면 금리인하가 있었을 것이라 봄. 장단기 금리차 역전을 근거로 연방기금금리가 4.33%보다 낮아야 한다고 언급. 관세 영향은 GDP 1~1.5% 수준의 일시적 부담이나 AI 생산성으로 상쇄 가능하며, 연말까지 상승 기조(강세장)가 유지될 수 있다고 봄.
다듬은 글
Let's bring in Jeremy Seagull, professor emmeritus of finance uh Wisdom Tree. I think you're Jeremy Professor, your ship's coming in. Uh the economy has been weaker than than people thought, I think. Yeah. Yeah. And first of all, I'm not going to let the BLS off the hook. I mean, you know, you talk about how to fix it.
you know, make these questionnaires mandatory and give them a time limit to fill it out. Um, you know, I mean, I think the the the response rates down to 60%. I mean, that's un unacceptable for the most important statistic that we have. It's almost like we're sending them out, you know, fill it out when you can.
We know you like to go to the beach in the summer, so it might be a little bit late. um you know this this is just not acceptable today. We need to that response rate has to to go up and and when you make the biggest mistake in 50 years why why wasn't there an explanation? I mean who's reporting wrong and why and you know there would just was no you know transparency there and I'm not going to try to justify the firing or not but you know in you know in this world of the internet and instantaneous response the this idea of of reports coming in weeks late I I think it's just totally unacceptable.
Um and it changed monetary policy. I mean, you know, I I definitely think there would have been a, you know, a rate cut at the July meeting had we known the the the numbers were as weak as it was. And uh, you know, I think uh uh you know, I mean, I'm I know one of your past uh uh uh you're talking about inversion of the of the term structure.
I I measure from Fed funds to the 10-year and it's inverted. And normally the Fed funds is 120 basis points below the the 10-year and and that that definitely argues for lower than you know 4.33%. So they they they need to they need to move on this. That's interesting. So I'm I'm wondering whether uh you you can ever expect a a sort of a governmentr run entity to to get it together or you couldn't do this.
I mean, we do have some private data from from ADP. Is it possible to to fix to fix this? And and you're absolutely right, if JPAL and and the rest of the Fed are banking on uh the current numbers that they get and then they can be off by that much. Um, you know, it monetary policy is hard enough with the right numbers.
If you got the wrong numbers, you don't have maybe actually if you got the wrong numbers, maybe you'd be better. I don't know. Maybe you end up doing the right thing. By the way, you know, um you know, I think Loretta Mester um uh you know, mentioned the Jolts report. You I think the Jolts report response is down to 20%.
It's less than half the precoid. Listen, CO is over. We can't keep on using CO, you know, as as a you know, excuse for not for not getting the data. Um and I mean and you know this is just critically important and why you know why wasn't there a big conversation and we're not getting the data or when we get the data it's wrong and why is it wrong and why aren't we mandating time limits for returning these questionnaires.
I mean a 60% response rate. Um it you know they send it out to I think 400,000 firms. This is not individuals. this is this is firms that that have the ability with the internet to get that information back. Um I I just I don't understand it. And so, you know, listen, I'm I'm you know, I I I I don't think it was political at all, but I'm not going to let the BLS off the hook.
Over the last two years, they should have been working on this problem. Well, okay. So, in the meantime, since Liberation Day, we've recovered all those gains, set a series of new highs. We had some weakness last week, but Okay. So, now we have the spectre of really maybe a a a weakening labor market.
Maybe you have that offset by uh the possibility of some rate cuts back on the table more than people thought. Uh but you also have uh we just had a report on the tariffs and and the effect on on Christmas. So, you you and you've got valuations that are probably pretty high again. So, I mean, what what what do you do with the stock market here?
Are you back thinking maybe we're we're uh we're ready for another pause? What's up with Andy? You got some Well, I think the bull trend is is still on. I think, you know, I think we are waiting. I mean, as as the last, you know, message about the tariffs, you know, maybe I I think it's I think the effects going to hit before Christmas.
I think we're going to begin to see that. But but don't forget I mean the most most economists think it's going to be one maybe one and a half percent of of GDP. First of first half of this year we had 1.2 you know and the the year before we had you know almost two and a half. So we're already kind of seeing that effect.
The question is can AI power us through that effect? I think that's the hope of the market. Can can we raise productivity enough through AI to offset the one-time drag and it is a one-time drag of of the tariffs and don't forget we haven't seen any retaliation so far you know that is a positive we did with with China right away with the rare well first of all the rates and then the rare earth but on the others we haven't seen that retaliation so it is not as serious is as we feared at first, but doesn't mean it's not going to have any effect.
The question is, can we raise that productivity enough through AI? And I think the market says yes, we can. There's enough slack in corporations to take up a lot of the loss that we might experience through the tariff tax. And I think that could still argue for an upward tilt to the end of the year.
What I want to see is is ordinary firms beginning to use AI to bring that productivity to the four. Professor, I just want to go back to one thing you said which is and I don't disagree with you. I agree that we need to make the BLS better at at capturing the numbers uh more quickly uh getting better information in and I don't know about the models themselves but I I would just suggest to you that that has been an almost an exposfacto rationale because the original original rationale that we heard on Friday from the president was that he said the numbers were rigged.
They were rigged. They were rigged against him. That's that's what he said factually. I'm not supporting that. Uh, you know, Andrew, abs, I absolutely do not think they were rigged. I mean, I think that that is a wrong statement, but um uh an incorrect statement that does not uh absolve the the BLS for not trying to get better data over the last two years and not explaining the big mistakes of this
Comments 0