.

Someone tell me why I shouldn't move funds into T-bills to ride this thing out.

That would have been a great idea 6 weeks ago. At this point you risk locking in losses and missing the recovery. Sure things might drop another 20% and you could buy back in at the bottom, but they might not.
 
Sounds like the new unemployment is 3MM some. Total claims is 6.6MM. Some are getting confused on the numbers.

Some media are now trying to compare raw numbers of claims to the great depression raw claims. You can't use those, maybe percentage, we have 3X the population as then.

This is inaccurate as I understand it.

We had 6.6M new unemployment claims last week, in addition to the 3.3M from the previous week, for a total of nearly 10M in the last two weeks combined.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/02/unemployment-claims-coronavirus-pandemic-161081

I agree that the unemployment rate, not total claims, should be used to compare to Great Depression. The peak unemployment rate was 24.9% in 1933, and the Fed's current projection is 32.1%.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1172111
 
This is inaccurate as I understand it.

We had 6.6M new unemployment claims last week, in addition to the 3.3M from the previous week, for a total of nearly 10M in the last two weeks combined.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/02/unemployment-claims-coronavirus-pandemic-161081

I agree that the unemployment rate, not total claims, should be used to compare to Great Depression. The peak unemployment rate was 24.9% in 1933, and the Fed's current projection is 32.1%.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1172111
I was going off what CBS morning news reported. Looks like they were wrong. I do know that self employed, like hairdressers and such,are filing. They get to claim somehow.
 
I agree that the unemployment rate, not total claims, should be used to compare to Great Depression. The peak unemployment rate was 24.9% in 1933, and the Fed's current projection is 32.1%.

Semi-disagree. Yes, percentage is what counts, not raw numbers.
BUT
Lots of people won't even be looking for work, so they don't get counted as unemployed. I'd look at the number of working age adults who are actually working (or not). I can't remember the exact name of the stat - economically inactive maybe?
 
Semi-disagree. Yes, percentage is what counts, not raw numbers.
BUT
Lots of people won't even be looking for work, so they don't get counted as unemployed. I'd look at the number of working age adults who are actually working (or not). I can't remember the exact name of the stat - economically inactive maybe?

Yeah, discouraged or underemployed I believe fall into the "real" U-6 rate but not the commonly reported U-3 rate.
 
I just kicked some sense into myself. Was wondering why many stocks are near their lows but the Dow is still above by 15-20%. Remembered who are the 30 companies. Many of those like Walmart, Nike, and such sell what people are still buying.
 
i made a bunch a few weeks back, then trying to time the guy dribbling the ball up and down, lost a ton. a ton. so i'm done
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron