Effects of Coronavirus (COVID-19) On Entertainment & Tourism Industry

[JungleSkip]

Compared to an 'expected 20%' after a lockdown of most of the nation, that's good news. Have to look at it in the big picture. The economy only tanked since the country was purposely locked down, not because there were inherent weaknesses in the economy. It's still going to be a tough 6 months, but the picture is so much brighter than even the 'experts' were hoping for. Sure, tourist areas won't be where they were before, probably for a good while, but it's still a very positive sign. It's not as bad as the doomsayers were saying.

I'll agree to disagree. It's better than expected. It's not good. lol

 

[Mad Dog]

I'll agree to disagree. It's better than expected. It's not good. lol

semantics. 'really good economic news' gain of 2.5 million jobs....................................and some airline & cruise line stocks jumped 20% in early trading today.

 

[fryoj]

Good, better, best.

Better is literally more than good.

 

[JungleSkip]

Good, better, best.

Better is literally more than good.

 

[ThemeParks4Life]

Good, better, best.

Better is literally more than good.

In the wise words of Inigo Montoya...



It'd be like saying Fast and Furious Supercharged is better than Superstar Limo.

 

[SkiBum]

The OH governor announced that amusement parks in Ohio can reopen in two weeks. I'm still waiting on the official opening date on the Kings Island website but I plan on being there very soon.

 

[Scott W.]

I inherited a good sum as the result of closing a brokerage account in December. Just waiting for a little certainty what happens in the next year. I also removed about half of my holdings at the end of February. It was going south and a blind man could see it so I wait. The strength of this rally is a little surprising to me even with the amount of money they have tossed out for grabs. Pretty sure we see a slump or worse after the start of August and tourism would be affected by that as well. Papa looks at his 401k and says "not this year kids, we got to tighten our belts or pops will be living in your home for the rest of his life".

I wish I had committed to buying William Hill shares in mid March but the uncertainty was too much. They're trading at 5x the share price today.

Hertz would have been my most recent bet when it was trading at 50c a share although still risky.

 

[JoeCamel]

I wish I had committed to buying William Hill shares in mid March but the uncertainty was too much. They're trading at 5x the share price today.

Hertz would have been my most recent bet when it was trading at 50c a share although still risky.

Lots of would haves - should haves right now but I think we get a real chance later this year. I like roller coasters but this one is pretty scary. Bright side the pound is up against the dollar from all this so it will be a bit less when you can get your trip in.

 

[Andysol]

I mean, it's better than expected, but we're still at 13.3% unemployment, bigger than any time during the Great Recession. not sure I'd call that "really good"

Not to bore everyone to tears- but we actually aren’t 13.3%.

They misreported 4.7 million people in April as being employed when they were unemployed (temporary leave). So unemployment numbers in April were actually 19.7%, not 14.7%. When you recalculate May, it’s actually 16.3% and not 13.3%.

TLDR; 16.3% is the actual unemployment number even though they are reporting 13.3% due to legal reasons (cant adjust properly due to political tampering law).

So as great as 2.5m jobs are, the misreporting is the story that no one is taking about. Seriously, 4.7M? What the hell. But 2.5m is the shiny object, so it gets the attention.

 

[Nick]

Not to bore everyone to tears- but we actually aren’t 13.3%.

They misreported 4.7 million people in April as being employed when they were unemployed (temporary leave). So unemployment numbers in April were actually 19.7%, not 14.7%. When you recalculate May, it’s actually 16.3% and not 13.3%.

TLDR; 16.3% is the actual unemployment number even though they are reporting 13.3% due to legal reasons (cant adjust properly due to political tampering law).

So as great as 2.5m jobs are, the misreporting is the story that no one is taking about. Seriously, 4.7M? What the hell. But 2.5m is the shiny object, so it gets the attention.

Very interesting as I had not heard this. Is there an article I can read?

 

[Andysol]

Very interesting as I had not heard this. Is there an article I can read?

I don’t even know if there’s an article on it- it’s just from a hedge fund guy I follow who pulled the excerpts from the data. It’s not “viral” enough to catch MSM, I don’t believe. But it’s there in the fine print.

 

[Nick]

I don’t even know if there’s an article on it- it’s just from a hedge fund guy I follow who pull the excerpts from the data. It’s not “viral” enough to catch MSM, I don’t believe. But it’s there in the fine print.

That means someone like me that’s on furlough is probably being considered “employed” still to help make the numbers look better.

 

[Andysol]

That means someone like me that’s on furlough is probably being considered “employed” still to help make the numbers look better.

Who knows. It may have been what they say with COVID and the chaos of transitioning to work from home which created the errors. It’s not like the government doesn’t have a track record of sucking at almost anything new they try (like Obamacare website not working the first several days at launch or the Iowa Democratic primary to name one of a dozen recent examples).

But the small conspiracy theorist on my shoulder thinks “14.7% unemployment” during April and trying to save the market sounds a lot better than “19.7%”

Either way it’s (hopefully) accounted for now and as more people are off furlough, that disparity will level off. The added 2.5m number isnt changed based on that disparity either way. That is, if the 2.5m was compiled correctly, of course... lol

 

[HandsomePete]

Also, let's not forget... if you are collecting unemployment right now, you are not doing as bad as typical unemployment with the $600/week from the federal government.

The unemployment rate does not "feel" as high as it is from an economic activity perspective because people are still making what I would consider to be a respectable amount from unemployment ($275/week in FL is not respectable) because the Feds are basically printing money. If that stops, there will be considerably more macroeconomic pain.

The real litmus test will be August, September, October.... whether there is a federal appetite to keep propping up the economy or record unemployment begins to feel like record unemployment.

 

[fryoj]

Also, let's not forget... if you are collecting unemployment right now, you are not doing as bad as typical unemployment with the $600/week from the federal government.

The unemployment rate does not "feel" as high as it is from an economic activity perspective because people are still making what I would consider to be a respectable amount from unemployment ($275/week in FL is not respectable) because the Feds are basically printing money. If that stops, there will be considerably more macroeconomic pain.

The real litmus test will be August, September, October.... whether there is a federal appetite to keep propping up the economy or record unemployment begins to feel like record unemployment.

The $600 bonus is actually going to make more people stay on Unemployment longer than they would otherwise. For some businesses, this is good if they aren't ready to bring everyone back. For others, it's a mess as employees want to stay on Unemployment as they are making more than they would otherwise. I agree the extra money in people's pockets is a good thing overall for the health of the economy short term. That July 31st date though will be the test. I can't imagine that $600 coming back. Maybe something similar, but not just a blanket $600. The ones who stayed on it as long as they can will want their jobs back. But will the job still be there?

 

[Mad Dog]

Who knows. It may have been what they say with COVID and the chaos of transitioning to work from home which created the errors. It’s not like the government doesn’t have a track record of sucking at almost anything new they try (like Obamacare website not working the first several days at launch or the Iowa Democratic primary to name one of a dozen recent examples).

But the small conspiracy theorist on my shoulder thinks “14.7% unemployment” during April and trying to save the market sounds a lot better than “19.7%”

Either way it’s (hopefully) accounted for now and as more people are off furlough, that disparity will level off. The added 2.5m number isnt changed based on that disparity either way. That is, if the 2.5m was compiled correctly, of course... lol

Yes. The 'true' unemployment rate' is always a good deal higher than the 'official' unemployment rate. They don't count discouraged workers who are not actively looking for work, etc. Plus everything is a bit complicated with the stimulus money to encourage some smaller companies to keep people on the payrolls. That said, these numbers coming out this week are encouraging for a couple of reasons. CNBC today had O'Bama's job czar on and he said he looked at the numbers and everything appeared legit. They had questioned him in relation to conspiracy theories on the numbers being faked that were popping up on Twitter, Also the total 'employed' worker numbers came up as a positive. And probably most important, the private business group that reports on job creation, that isn't a government agency, gave a report two days ago showing a jump of 9 million jobs for May. Analysts had thought that may have been an outlier, but then it made sense, analysts on CNBC said today, when the unemployment report hit. Bottom line though, is the opening is exceeding expectations of even the most optimistic White House officials. Keeping fingers crossed that it continues on this trajectory......and, the other day there was a government report that the 'savings rate' for April was a ridiculously high 35%, a figure way above the norms. Probably because people had limited options on where to spend non essential earnings. So sooner or later that excess money will probably be spent. That will stimulate the economy too, if it gets spent.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

Yes. The 'true' unemployment rate' is always a good deal higher than the 'official' unemployment rate. They don't count discouraged workers who are not actively looking for work, etc

Giving me Macroeconomics 101 flashbacks Mad Dog...I remember we also talked about how 4% unemployment in 2015 is not as good as say 4% unemployment in 2008, since the labor force contracted after the recession (not exact years just example). Not sure how long you would have to not be seeking a job to be considered out of the labor force though.

 

[Mad Dog]

Giving me Macroeconomics 101 flashbacks Mad Dog...I remember we also talked about how 4% unemployment in 2015 is not as good as say 4% unemployment in 2008, since the labor force contracted after the recession (not exact years just example). Not sure how long you would have to not be seeking a job to be considered out of the labor force though.

Yes, I've been following these stats for way more years that I would want to admit to. The 'official' unemployment rate is just one a of few stats to look at to get a true snapshot, since there's so many variables. Part time work is another one, and that's one of the reasons present day stats are not necessarily as strong as those from a couple of decades ago, when part timers were a smaller portion of the labor force. That said, figures from the past few years are comparable since the labor force has had about the same percentages of part time and contracted out employees, and those dropping out of the labor force no longer looking for work have remained constant. These, though, are reasons I like to look at the total employed numbers,and private groups hiring numbers, since combined, they give a more accurate picture. On the conspiracy stuff though, that as expected, popped up on social media. I give credit to CNBC for quickly quashing that. O'Bamas labor czar replied that there are such a high number of career employees that work on and compile the various economic numbers, that it would be impossible for a politically oriented director to fudge the numbers, that the system is basically built so no one could do that......And there will also be a 'updated' final tabulation issued at the end of this month for May. Generally the updates are within a short range, up or down, of the original estimates.

 

[Andysol]

*takes off tin foil hat, puts on mod hat I created for myself out of paper*

While the unemployment conversation has been really informative, let’s get back on subject re: entertainment & tourism

 

[Mad Dog]

It will be interesting to see if tourism to Orlando starts to slowly trickle up, or if it stays flat. I kind of think once WDW opens they'll be a 'small to moderate' jump. WDW is, by far, more a vacation destination than Universal.