<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/05/unemployment_isnt_a_lagging_indicator_its_the_leading_indicator.php" />
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://business.theatlantic.com/atom.xml" />
	<id>tag:business.theatlantic.com,2009://3/tag:business.theatlantic.com,2009://3.18306-</id>
	<updated></updated>
	<title>Comments for Does Unemployment Guide the Stock Market?</title>
	
	<generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.24-en</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>tag:business.theatlantic.com,2009://3.18306</id>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/05/unemployment_isnt_a_lagging_indicator_its_the_leading_indicator.php" />
		<link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://business.theatlantic.com/mt-42/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=3/entry_id=18306" title="Does Unemployment Guide the Stock Market?" />
		<published>2009-05-27T14:45:59Z</published>
		<updated>2009-05-27T17:10:57Z</updated>
		<title>Does Unemployment Guide the Stock Market?</title>
		<summary> Conventional wisdom holds that stock prices are leading indicators of economic health, while unemployment figures are lagging indicators. This makes sense, because stock prices reflect real-time valuations of company health, whereas employers don&apos;t make the decision to downsize (or...</summary>
		<author>
			<name>Derek Thompson</name>
			<uri>http://www.theatlantic.com/</uri>
		</author>
		
		<category term="Promo" />
		
		<content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://business.theatlantic.com/">
			<![CDATA[ Conventional wisdom holds that stock prices are leading indicators of economic health, while unemployment figures are lagging indicators. This makes sense, because stock prices reflect real-time valuations of company health, whereas employers don't make the decision to downsize (or restaff) until they feel like they've got a sense of long-term recession or growth. But along comes Felix Salmon with <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/25/chart-of-the-day-stocks-vs-unemployment/">a graph to blow up that whole theory</a>:<br />]]>
			<![CDATA[<br />First, here's the graph he tracks down, which seems to indicate that
stock prices and unemployment have held hands this recession.<br /><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img alt="salmongraph.png" src="http://business.theatlantic.com/salmongraph.png" class="mt-image-none" style="" height="315" width="500" /></span><br />My
first thought was: Well, maybe improved information technology made
employers more sensitive to this downturn. So I went to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics to check out unemployment trends, and here's the
unemployment graph over the last three decades:<br /><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img alt="unemployment.png" src="http://business.theatlantic.com/unemployment.png" class="mt-image-center" style="margin: 0pt auto 20px; text-align: center; display: block;" height="268" width="502" /></span>You
can see the four big unemployment spikes are: after 74, after 82, after
91, and after 2001.&nbsp; But what happens when you compare unemployment
spikes to corresponding stock market troughs? Does Salmon's theory hold
that unemployment spikes mark the the beginning of long-term stock
rallies? Let's see.<br /><br /><div align="center"><b>1974</b><br /></div><br />In
the recession that began in 1974, unemployment figures peaked in early
1975, a few months after the stock market bottomed out in December,
1974. Conclusion: Unemployment peak was a lagging, but not too lagging,
indicator of long-term stock rally.<br /><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img alt="un76.png" src="http://business.theatlantic.com/un76.png" class="mt-image-none" style="" height="271" width="506" /></span><br /><img alt="stock76.png" src="http://business.theatlantic.com/stock76.png" class="mt-image-none" height="168" width="587" /><br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><b>1982<br /></b></div>In
the recession that defined Reagan's first year-plus, unemployment
peaked in the last quarter of 1982. Similarly the stock market saw the
bottom in August 1982. Conclusion: Once again, the peak of unemployment
occurred a few months after the bottom of the stock market.<br /><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img alt="un83.png" src="http://business.theatlantic.com/un83.png" class="mt-image-none" style="" height="271" width="493" /></span><br /><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img alt="stock1983.png" src="http://business.theatlantic.com/stock1983.png" class="mt-image-none" style="" height="139" width="500" /></span>
<br /><br /><div align="center"><b>1991<br /></b></div><br />In the recession
that swept Clinton into office, unemployment's ceiling occurred during
the campaign in the summer of 1992, more than a year and a half after
the stock market began to climb from its October 1990 bottom.
Conclusion: Unemployment really lagged stock growth in the early 1990s.
<br /><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img alt="un92.png" src="http://business.theatlantic.com/un92.png" class="mt-image-none" style="" height="283" width="525" /></span><br /><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img alt="stock1993.png" src="http://business.theatlantic.com/stock1993.png" class="mt-image-none" style="" height="139" width="500" /></span>
<br /><br /><div align="center"><b>2001<br /><br /></b></div><div>In the
recession that followed Clinton's exit and 9/11, unemployment topped in
the middle of 2003, while the the market began its consistent upward
tick in March. Conclusion: Again, a few months after the market began
its steady climb, unemployment peaked.<br /><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img alt="un2001.png" src="http://business.theatlantic.com/un2001.png" class="mt-image-none" style="" height="263" width="496" /></span><br /></div><div><br /><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img alt="stock2001.png" src="http://business.theatlantic.com/stock2001.png" class="mt-image-none" style="" height="140" width="500" /></span><br /></div><div><br /></div>What
can we take away from these graphs? Salmon's theory does not seem to
hold over the last three decades. The peak of unemployment often comes
around a quarter after the stock market turns up, which seems to me to
validate its reputation as a lagging indicator. The good news, however,
is that in this downturn, the stock market rebounded in early March,
which would suggest, historically, that unemployment could peak in
early summer. Let's just hope, for the sake of the unemployed, that
this isn't 1991 redux.<br />]]>
		</content>
	</entry>

</feed>