I do hope the apology is sincere and not sarcastic, Doug, because what you say below doesn't enlighten me at all. The 'unexpected' 0.8% increase was 0.4% greater than the 0.4% expectations of analysts polled by Reuters, but coincidentally was the same size as the 0.8% upward revision of the December numbers.
To summarize, the 'surprising' part of the number was about half as big as the revision to the previous number and thus could conceivably be swamped by a subsequent revision to the January number. So why should such a slender reed be taken as a major augury, sufficient to brush aside more fundamental questions about, say, the reliability of corporate financial reporting? Doug Henwood wrote, >Sorry to disappoint, Tom, but taking out gas station sales as well as >autos, retail sales were still up 0.8% month-to-month. Surge is >jounrnalistic hyperbole, for sure, but consumption is holding up in >the U.S. And with the initial unemployment claims falling and >consumer confidence rising, it's looking very much like a trough. It >could all fall apart, but it ain't yet. > >And the Redbook retail sales survey for the first week of Feb was up >4.2% year-on-year, bringing the three-month moving average to +1.9%. >Since auto sales are much stronger than anyone expected after the >fading of 0% financing, retail is looking pretty strong. Sorry again. Tom Walker
