Louise Curley

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100426a.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>Almost two weeks ago, the Department of Statistics in
Singapore released its flash estimate of first quarter year over the
year growth of the economy of the city state--13.1%. The year to year
growth in the manufacturing sector was estimated at 30.0%, as shown in
the first chart.</p>
<p>Today March data for industrial production and five industry
clusters--Electronics, Chemicals, Biomedicals, Precision Engineering
and Transport were released. We have aggregated the monthly data to
quarterly data for comparison with the GDP data. The year to year
increases in Industrial Production are very close to those for
Manufacturing in the GNP data, as can be seen in the table below.</p>
<p>The 30.0% year to year change in the quarterly GNP data for
manufacturing in the first quarter of 2010 was due to a 70.3% year to
year increase in the production of Electronics, a 37.2% increase in the
production of Biomedicals, a 32.0% increase in the production of
Precision Engineering products and a 17.3% increase in the production
of Chemicals. The production of Transport equipment actually declined
14.2% in the first quarter. The year to year percent changes in the
quarterly data for the production of Electronics, Chemicals, Precision
Engineering and Transport clusters are shown in the second chart. The
year to year changes in the production of Biomedicals is shown in a
separate, the third, chart. The pattern of production in all five has
been erratic but most notably in that of Biomedicals.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100426b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100426c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Singapore:
Year to Year % Change</th>
<th scope="col"><b>Q1 10&nbsp;</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Q4 09&nbsp;</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Q3 09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Q2 09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Q1 09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Q4 08</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Q3 08</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Q2 08</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Q1 08</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Gross Domestic
Product</td>
<td>13.1</td>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>-3.1</td>
<td>-9.4</td>
<td>-4.2</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>6.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;
Manufacturing</td>
<td>30.0</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>-23.8</td>
<td>-10.7</td>
<td>-11.0</td>
<td>-5.6</td>
<td>12.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Industrial
Production&nbsp; (2007=100)y/y%</td>
<td>32.9</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>-23.8</td>
<td>-10.7</td>
<td>-10.9</td>
<td>-5.6</td>
<td>12.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Electronics</td>
<td>70.3</td>
<td>28.0</td>
<td>-1.2</td>
<td>-19.4</td>
<td>-36.6</td>
<td>-23.2</td>
<td>-5.4</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>3.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Chemicals</td>
<td>17.3</td>
<td>12.9</td>
<td>-5.3</td>
<td>-16.5</td>
<td>-22.6</td>
<td>-16.9</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Biomedicals</td>
<td>37.2</td>
<td>-24.2</td>
<td>64.3</td>
<td>64.9</td>
<td>-23.5</td>
<td>1.46</td>
<td>-35.8</td>
<td>-28.1</td>
<td>49.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Precision Engineering</td>
<td>32.0</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>-15.8</td>
<td>-22.0</td>
<td>-29.1</td>
<td>-15.5</td>
<td>-7.1</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>-2.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Transport</td>
<td>-14.2</td>
<td>-16.7</td>
<td>-8.6</td>
<td>-2.0</td>
<td>7.2</td>
<td>8.2</td>
<td>5.4</td>
<td>9.9</td>
<td>4.7</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Almost two weeks ago, the Department of Statistics in Singapore released its flash estimate of first quarter year over the year growth of the economy of the city state--13.1%. The year to year growth in the manufacturing sector was [...]

The Components Of The 30% Y/Y Growth In Singapore's Manufacturing Production In Q 1

Our global data offering is unparalleled in terms of coverage, quality, and organization. We offer 290+ databases from 2500 government and private sources, a wealth of key survey and forecast data covering the world’s economies, and a robust offering of archive databases that drive machine learning for big data applications.

Optimized for precision analytics, our data is seamlessly integrated with Microsoft Office and all leading statistical packages through our DLX® software and platform independent HaverView™ website. We further offer direct database feeds, client server or cloud-based delivery, and RESTful API.


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

A premier time series data platform for the global strategy, research, and quant communities. 

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Tom Moeller

240517f5.jpg

240517g5.jpg

The U.S. Leading Economic Index fell 0.6% (-5.4% y/y) during April following an unrevised 0.3% March decline, according to a report by The Conference Board. These two changes followed a 0.2% February improvement. A 0.3% April shortfall had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.

Five of ten components contributed negatively to the overall index in April including the ISM new orders index, building permits, stock prices, the spread between the 10-year Treasury and the Fed funds rate, as well as consumer expectations for business/economic conditions. Initial claims for unemployment insurance and the leading credit index contributed positively. New orders for capital goods and new orders for consumer goods made minimal positive contributions to the index change while the length of the average workweek had no effect on the leading index change.

A 0.2% April increase in the Coincident Economic Index followed a 0.2% March gain, revised from 0.3%. These gains came after a 0.3% February rise. Three of the four components made positive contributions to the coincident index in April, including the changes in personal income less transfers, nonagricultural payroll employment and real manufacturing & trade sales. The change in industrial production had no effect on the coincident indicators.

The Lagging Economic Index rose 0.4% (1.4% y/y) after unrevised stability in March and a 0.2% February increase. Three of the index’s seven components made positive contributions last month including the average duration of unemployment, commercial & industrial loans outstanding and the ratio of consumer credit to income. The six-month change in unit labor costs made a minimally negative contribution while the six-month change in the services CPI, banks’ prime rate and the ratio of business inventories-to-sales were unchanged.

The ratio of the coincident index to the lagging index is also viewed as a leading indicator of economic activity. This measure fell 0.2% in April, following two straight monthly increases. It was 0.8% below its most recent peak in December of last year.

The Conference Board figures are available in Haver's **BCI** database; the components are available there, and most are also in **USECON**. The expectations are in the **AS1REPNA** database. Visit the Conference Board's [website](https://www.conference-board.org/us/) for coverage of leading indicator series from around the world.



240517h5.jpg

240517i5.jpg

- Leading index decline is largest in six months.
- Coincident Indicators continue to increase moderately.
- Lagging index strengthens after holding steady.


U.S. Leading Economic Indicators Fall Sharply in April

Robert Brusca

240517e.jpg

**EMU Inflation Trends Offer Hope and Hype**- Inflation in the European Monetary Union rose by 0.2% month-to-month in April, the same as in March. Core inflation, however, picked up, rising by 0.4% but that was after being flat in March. The sequential growth rates from 12-months to six-months to three-months show the headline inflation rate at 2.4% over 12-months falling to 2% over 6-months, then rising to a 3% annual rate over three-months. The core rate for the monetary union rose 2.9% over 12-months at a 2.7% annual rate over six-months, it steps up to a 2.8% annual rate over three-months. Headline inflation is resisting moving down to the 2% level consistently while core inflation appears to be stuck just short of 3%. Whether these trends are good enough depends on whether the ECB sees itself implementing precision-guided policy or playing horseshoes and hand grenades.

**Headline Inflation: four largest EMU members**
Statistics for the largest four members of the monetary union show inflation worse in April on balance than for the monetary union as a whole. German inflation rose by 0.8% in April, in France it rose by 0.7%, in Spain at rose by 0.5%, while in Italy it rose by 0.3%. These are month-to-month gains. However, these figures followed either flat or declining inflation (price-) performance in March for each of these four countries. The progression of inflation for Germany, France, Italy, and Spain, however, still shows inflation resisting a consistent move down to 2%. German inflation runs at 2.6% over 12-months steps up to 2.7% over 6-months and reaches a 2.9% annual rate over 3-months. France’s 12-month inflation of 2.4% steps down to 2.2% over 6-months, then rises to a 3.2% annual rate over 3-months. In Italy, headline inflation is 1.1% over 12-months, similarly at a 1% annual rate over 6-months, then rises to a 1.7% annual rate over 3-months. Spain's inflation falls from 3.6% over 12-months to 3.2% over 6-months to 2.3% over 3-months- finally a European Monetary Union large country member with persistently decelerating inflation! On balance Italian inflation over 3-months is under the target that the ECB has for the monetary union as a whole, Spain’s inflation is transitioning from 12-months to 6-months to 3-months down close to the 2% mark, while Germany and France continue to show stubbornly too-high results for their headline inflation rates. All-in-all, that is not a great background to support a rate cut.

**Core inflation and its trends offer hope**
Core inflation rates produce much more beneficial results. Still, in April month-to-month core inflation increases are generally excessive for these four members. But that follows declining inflation – falling prices- for core rates in March. Germany is an exception to this pattern, but it still follows the rule of improvement because its inflation progress is flipped between the two months. Looking at sequential growth rates for core inflation or ex-energy inflation for these large country members, we find that inflation is persistently decelerating from 12-months to 6-months to 3-months for all of them except for France. France shows a pickup in inflation over 3-months compared to 6-months as core inflation rises to a 3-month rate of 2.9% after posting a 2.1% pace over 6-months. The 3-month pace for inflation x-energy for Germany is 2.1%, the core for Italy is at 1.7%, and the core for Spain is at 1.8%. All three-monthly core rates are at the doorstep or within the ECB's target range for headline EMU inflation. France is the exception. The 12-month core inflation rates are all above target but show signs of coming into line; German and French year-over-year inflation rates decline in April compared to March the Italian rate is unchanged year-over-year at 2.3% on the monthly comparison, while only Spain has an acceleration compared to a month ago and that's to a 3.3% rise from 3.1% in March.

**Is it good enough?**
The speed of inflation’s drop- Core inflation rates would seem to build a good enough base for the ECB to move ahead with rate cuts if it decides it wants to go that way. If it wants to be surer and clearer about reducing inflation it will pay more attention to the headline rates that are excessive- especially since no inflation metric is falling particularly fast anymore. The risk over ‘overshooting’ on the downside seems remote. Oil prices as measured by Brent in euros rose by 4.3% month-to-month in April after rising 1.6% in March. However, year-over-year Brent prices are down by 3.3%, so the impulse from oil is mixed across tenors. 

ECB credibility- A different view of reality looks at ECB inflation performance over five-years and finds all the metrics quite unacceptable. Over the last five years the compounded inflation rate for the monetary union is 3.7% and for the core it's 2.8%. For Germany it's 4.1%, for France it's 3.3%, and for Italy and Spain it's 3.4%. The core or X energy inflation rates do not behave much better, Germany is at 3.3% over five years on its core measure, France at 2.7%, Spain at 3%, and Italy at 2.5%. If the ECB is concerned about its credibility, then it's going to want to make sure that it gets inflation down inside of its target soon because the five-year compound inflation rates are so far over their target that clearly a central bank that claims to target 2% inflation cannot look at that five-year record and consider policies to have been a success. 

**Driving the road ahead**- Looking ahead it's very possible that inflation is on a downtrend and that policy is moving inflation in the right direction; the question remains concerns the certainty of that conclusion and the question ‘is inflation moving down fast enough?’  The ECB is going to have to measure the impact on its credibility against its desire to hit its inflation target in the short run and pay some attention to the effect that policy has on economic growth rates in the monetary union. On that score, unemployment rates throughout the European Monetary Union are still extremely low in historic comparisons… but, there has been a new sensitivity across central banks globally as they try to reduce their inflation rates ‘to target levels’ without having much impact on the unemployment rates at all - even though unemployment rates are in many places near some version of historic lows. Time will tell whether this sort of prevarication in inflation fighting that coddles the unemployment rate that is already so low is wise or has turned out to be foolhardy. 


240517.jpg

Europe

EMU Inflation Trends Offer Hope and Hype- Inflation in the European Monetary Union rose by 0.2% month-to-month in April, the same as in March. Core inflation, however, picked up, rising by 0.4% but that was after being flat in March. The sequential growth rates from 12-months to six-months to three-months show the headline inflation rate at 2.4% over 12-months falling to 2% over 6-months, then rising to a 3% annual rate over three-months. The core rate for the monetary union rose 2.9% over 12-months at a 2.7% annual rate over six-months, it steps up to a 2.8% annual rate over three-months. Headline inflation is resisting moving down to the 2% level consistently while core inflation appears to be stuck just short of 3%. Whether these trends are good enough depends on whether the ECB sees itself implementing precision-guided policy or playing horseshoes and hand grenades.

EMU Inflation Holds the line 2% Beckons

240516f4.jpg

240516g4.jpg

Total housing starts increased 5.7% (-0.6% y/y) during April to 1.360 million units (SAAR) after falling 16.8% in March to 1.287 million units, revised from 1.321 million. Starts in February rose a little-revised 12.4% to 1.546 million units. Starts remained 24.6% below the most recent peak of 1.803 million in April 2022. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected 1.420 million starts in April.

Housing starts by type were mixed last month. Starts of single-family units eased 0.4% (+17.7% y/y) to 1.031 million after declining 8.7% in March to 1.035 million, revised from 1.022 million. They reached a high of 1.286 units in December 2020. Multi-family starts increased 30.6% (-33.1% y/y) in April to 329,000 after falling 38.8% to 252,000 in March, revised from 299,000. They reached a high of 624,000 units in November 2022.

Regional activity was mixed in April. In the Northeast, the level of starts fell 22.6% (-43.8% y/y) to 72,000 units after declining 21.8% in March and 10.5% in February. Starts in the Midwest rose 19.1% (3.4% y/y) to 181,000 following a 36.4% March decline. Starts in the South improved 10.1% (4.9% y/y) to 799,000 after a 15.9% March decline. In the West, starts fell 2.5% (+1.7% y/y) to 308,000 after declining in each of the prior three months.

Building permits declined 3.0% (-2.0% y/y) in April 1.440 million units after falling 5.0% to 1.485 million in March, revised from 1.458 million. It was the lowest level of permits since December 2022. Single-family permits eased 0.8% (+11.4% y/y) to 976,000 in April following a 4.2% March decline and a 0.4% February slip. Multi-family permits weakened 7.4% (-21.9% y/y) to 464,000, after falling 6.5% in March.

The housing starts and permits figures can be found in Haver's **USECON** database. The expectations figure is contained in the **AS1REPNA** database.



240516h4.jpg

240516i4.jpg

- Single-family starts decline but multi-family surge.
- Starts are mixed throughout the country.
- Building permits fall to lowest level in over one year.


U.S. Housing Starts Rise Modestly in April; Building Permits Fall

Sandy Batten

240516r2.jpg

240516s2.jpg

Total industrial production was unchanged in April from March and 0.4% lower than a year ago. The previously released 0.4% rise in March was revised down to a meager 0.1% monthly gain. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected a 0.1% increase in production last month. Manufacturing production slumped 0.3% m/m (-0.5% y/y) after a downwardly revised 0.2% monthly gain in March (initially reported as 0.5%). 

Mining activity declined for the third time in the past four months, falling 0.6% (-1.3% /y) following an upwardly revised 1.1% m/m decline in March (previously -1.4% m/m). Utilities output was the only positive part of industrial activity in April, rising 2.8% m/m (+2.3% y/y) on top of a downwardly revised 1.6% monthly gain in March (previously 2.0% m/m).

Amid the monthly volatility, manufacturing output has been relatively flat over the past nine months. In fact, the index level in April was 99.4, exactly the same as in August 2023. The manufacturing sector has been one of the most adversely affected by the Fed’s interest rate hikes. Since April 2022 (just after the Fed initiated it rate hikes in March 2022), manufacturing output has fallen 1.4%. Within the manufacturing sector in April, durable goods production fell 0.5% m/m, its first monthly decline in three months, led by a 2.0% m/m decline in motor vehicle production and a 1.9% m/m drop in the production of electrical equipment and appliances. Production of nondurable goods edged down 0.1% m/m in April following a 0.2% monthly increase in March. Production of selected high-technology industries increased 1.0% m/m. By contrast, petroleum and coal products output slumped 4.4%m/m, the first monthly decline in three months.

Manufacturing output excluding motor vehicles slipped 01% m/m in April after being unchanged in March. Manufacturing excluding selected high-tech industries fell 0.3% m/m in April versus a 0.1% monthly gain in March. Manufacturing output excluding both selected high-tech industries and motor vehicles decreased 0.2% m/m, its sixth monthly decline in the past seven months. Production of consumer goods inched up 0.1% m/m in April following a 0.5% monthly gain in March. Output of business equipment fell 0.5% m/m on top of a 0.2% monthly decline in March. 

Production of construction supplies fell 1.0% m/m in April, the sixth monthly decline in the past seven months. Materials output edged up 0.1% m/m in April, just offsetting a 0.1% m/m decline in March.

Total capacity utilization slipped to 78.4% in April from a slightly upward revised 78.5% in March (previously 78.4%). The April reading was exactly as expected by the Actions Economics Forecast Survey. The capacity utilization rate for manufacturing fell significantly to 76.9% from 77.2%. By contrast, the capacity rate for utilities rose to 71.0 from 69.2.

Industrial production and capacity data are in Haver’s **USECON** database. Additional detail on production and capacity utilization can be found in the **IP** database. The expectations figures come from the **AS1REPNA** database.



240516t2.jpg

240516u2.jpg

- IP was unchanged in April with manufacturing falling 0.3% m/m
- Manufacturing decline led by 2.0% m/m drop in motor vehicle output
- Mining fell for the third month of the past four
- Capacity utilization slipped to 78.4%


U.S. Industrial Production Unchanged in April