FBI Investigating Irregularities at Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index

"Univ. of Mich. releases a Mid Month and Final reading for Consumer Sentiment. There is no way that paid subscribers get the number 2"

agree 100%. the article is FALSE, havent you learned ur lesson from the Exposure of THE NEWYORKTIMES.... The last thing you want to belive is FUCKING REPORTERS>>>>>>>>>>>

THE NUMBER is a joke...and means nothing to most.....UofMs number was pumpned by DAYTRADERS back in the BULL...but the sample size is toooooooooooooooo FUCKING SMALL and it means DICK.

FUCKING RETAIL SALES means more than the MICHIGAN CONSUMER NUMBER..........

THE GOVERNMENT IS FULL OF FUCKING FEAR CREATING HACKS FROM BOTH PARTIES.........ITS OUT OF CONTROL AND WANT TO LEGISLATE EVERYTHING FROM MORALITY TO ECONOMY..............
 
Quote from TRADERguy:

The article is wrong; plain and simple! Think about it...some of the subscribers are the news wire services; why would they keep the info to themselves for longer than it takes them to type it and send it out to their subscribers. I listen to the conference call (as a subscriber to the Michigan consumer number) and then it comes out on Bloomberg a fraction of a second later. It's not much time, but it's enough to get off a market order before it hits the wire services and the TV. The best opportunity was a couple of months ago when the expected number was in the low 90s and the number came out at 103 and change. Most everyone in my office got of their order when the woman on the conference call said the word "one."

There is a preliminary monthly number and then a final revision 2 weeks later....perhaps this had something to do with the confusion of the author of the article.
More...

Well, the article states that "media and the rest of public" gets the number at the same time. (unless I'm mistaken) Bloomy is a media outlet, not an investment bank or broker. That is consistent with the article. So, I don't see how your argument proves the article wrong.

Article states they sell the "data" whatever that means, 2 weeks ahead of the public, through paid subscriptions.

It doesn't explain if the "data" and the final number released are the same, or if the number is a calculated figure from that "data"

So technically the number maybe out to all at the same time. I don't know.

Mich site offers a paid subscription for 35k to those "data" collected. That is on their site! http://www.theacsi.org/corporate_subscriptions.htm And that validates the paid for data claim on that article. How can the article be dismissed as bogus right of the bat?.:confused:

So the question still stands why pay for something that is supposed to be free???? .:confused:

Now if a reader is working for GSCO or any other subscriber and knows for sure that they get the "data" the same time as the rest... please state so.
 
Quote from ertrader1:


THE GOVERNMENT IS FULL OF FUCKING FEAR CREATING HACKS FROM BOTH PARTIES.........ITS OUT OF CONTROL AND WANT TO LEGISLATE EVERYTHING FROM MORALITY TO ECONOMY..............
More...

Ah, a kindred spirit. Well said!
 
Quote from Nolan-Vinny-Sam:

Well, the article states that "media and the rest of public" gets the number at the same time. (unless I'm mistaken) Bloomy is a media outlet, not an investment bank or broker. That is consistent with the article. So, I don't see how your argument proves the article wrong.

Article states they sell the "data" whatever that means, 2 weeks ahead of the public, through paid subscriptions.

It doesn't explain if the "data" and the final number released are the same, or if the number is a calculated figure from that "data"

So technically the number maybe out to all at the same time. I don't know.

Mich site offers a paid subscription for 35k to those "data" collected. That is on their site! http://www.theacsi.org/corporate_subscriptions.htm And that validates the paid for data claim on that article. How can the article be dismissed as bogus right of the bat?.:confused:

So the question still stands why pay for something that is supposed to be free???? .:confused:

Now if a reader is working for GSCO or any other subscriber and knows for sure that they get the "data" the same time as the rest... please state so.
More...

The article is misleading because it links the company specific marketing data (sold to companies 2 weeks prior to public release) to the consumer sentiment number and then implies something unethical and illegal is going on because the sentiment number "is included in the Leading Indicator Composite Index published by the US Department of Commerce." The University of Michigan does market research for private companies and that is composed of completely different questions than the ones that go into compiling the consumer sentiment number. The attempt to link the two is inaccurate at best and is most probably an attempt to intentionally mislead the people reading the article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top