Tom Moeller

<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>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090402a.jpg" width="353">
Perhaps replacement demand was a factor when it came to light vehicle sales last month. Possibly, it was deep price discounts. Or was this the beginning of a bona fide uptrend? For whatever reason, U.S. unit sales of light vehicles increased 7.8% from February to 9.83M units (SAAR). The result was an upside surprise versus expectations for a 9.2M sales rate. Though sales were up slightly from February as well as from January, the latest figure still was near the lowest since 1982 according to the Autodata Corporation and Ward&#39;s Automotive News. (Seasonal adjustment of the figures is provided by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis).
Sales of domestically-made light vehicles registered an impressive 10.1% month-to-month increase from February to 6.92M units. That was enough to fully recover the 6.8% February drop. Sales of domestically made light trucks recovered more than half of their February decline with an 8.7% increase to 3.70M units. While impressive, that rise was outpaced by an 11.7% increase in auto sales to 3.23M units, their highest level since December.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090402b.jpg" width="353">
Imported light vehicle sales rose a more modest 2.8% m/m last month but that followed a slight February increase. Still outpacing domestics, the year-to-year decline in sales of imported vehicles amounted to just 27.6%. That was far less than the decline for U.S. made vehicles. Sales of imported autos rose an impressive 5.1% during March to their highest level since last October. Light truck sales fell a modest 0.8% after four months of increase.
Overall, import&#39;s share of the U.S. light vehicle market totaled 29.6% following the record 31.1% during February. That latest figures were up nearly five percentage points from the 2008 average. (Imported vehicles are those produced outside the United States.) Imports&#39; share of the U.S. car market totaled 36.2% while the share of the light truck market was 22.7%.
The U.S. vehicle sales figures can be found in Haver&#39;s USECON database.
Steps toward a New Financial Regulatory Architecture is yesterday&#39;s speech by Cleveland Fed President &amp; CEO Sandra Pianalto and it can be found <a href="http://www.clevelandfed.org/For_the_Public/News_and_Media/Speeches/2009/Pianalto_20090401.cfm"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED09/@ED0901/@ED0901.HTM">Light Vehicle Sales (SAAR, Mil. Units)</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">March Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>9.83</td>
<td>9.12</td>
<td>9.57</td>
<td>-34.9%</td>
<td>13.17</td>
<td>16.16</td>
<td>16.54</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Autos</td>
<td>5.05</td>
<td>4.63</td>
<td>4.60</td>
<td>-32.6</td>
<td>6.71</td>
<td>7.58</td>
<td>7.77</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Domestic</td>
<td>3.23</td>
<td>2.89</td>
<td>2.84</td>
<td>-33.9</td>
<td>4.42</td>
<td>5.07</td>
<td>5.31</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Imported</td>
<td>1.83</td>
<td>1.74</td>
<td>1.76</td>
<td>-30.1</td>
<td>2.29</td>
<td>2.52</td>
<td>2.45</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Light Trucks</td>
<td>4.78</td>
<td>4.50</td>
<td>4.97</td>
<td>-37.1</td>
<td>6.47</td>
<td>8.60</td>
<td>8.78</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Domestic</td>
<td>3.70</td>
<td>3.40</td>
<td>3.91</td>
<td>-40.3</td>
<td>5.29</td>
<td>7.10</td>
<td>7.42</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Imported</td>
<td>1.09</td>
<td>1.10</td>
<td>1.06</td>
<td>-23.0</td>
<td>1.18</td>
<td>1.47</td>
<td>1.37</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Perhaps replacement demand was a factor when it came to light vehicle sales last month. Possibly, it was deep price discounts. Or was this the beginning of a bona fide uptrend? For whatever reason, U.S. unit sales of light vehicles [...]

March U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Increase From 27-Year low

<!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>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090402a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Perhaps replacement demand was a factor when it came to light
vehicle sales last month. Possibly, it was deep price discounts. Or was
this the beginning of a bona fide uptrend? For whatever reason, U.S.
unit sales of light vehicles increased 7.8% from February to 9.83M
units (SAAR). The result was an upside surprise versus expectations for
a 9.2M sales rate. Though sales were up slightly from February as well
as from January, the latest figure still was near the lowest since 1982
according to the Autodata Corporation and Ward's Automotive News.
(Seasonal adjustment of the figures is provided by the U.S. Bureau of
Economic Analysis).
Sales of domestically-made light vehicles
registered an impressive 10.1% month-to-month increase from February to
6.92M units. That was enough to fully recover the 6.8% February drop.
Sales of domestically made light trucks recovered more than half of
their February decline with an 8.7% increase to 3.70M units. While
impressive, that rise was outpaced by an 11.7% increase in auto sales
to 3.23M units, their highest level since December.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090402b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Imported light vehicle sales rose a more
modest 2.8% m/m last month but that followed a slight February
increase. Still outpacing domestics, the year-to-year decline in sales
of imported vehicles amounted to just 27.6%. That was far less than the
decline for U.S. made vehicles. Sales of imported autos rose an
impressive 5.1% during March to their highest level since last October.
Light truck sales fell a modest 0.8% after four months of increase.
Overall, import's share of the U.S. light
vehicle market totaled 29.6% following the record 31.1% during
February. That latest figures were up nearly five percentage points
from the 2008 average. (Imported vehicles are those produced outside
the United States.) Imports' share of the U.S. car market totaled 36.2%
while the share of the light truck market was 22.7%.
The U.S. vehicle sales figures can be found in Haver's
USECON database.
Steps toward a New Financial Regulatory Architecture
is yesterday's speech by Cleveland Fed President &amp; CEO Sandra
Pianalto and it can be found <a href="http://www.clevelandfed.org/For_the_Public/News_and_Media/Speeches/2009/Pianalto_20090401.cfm">
here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED09/@ED0901/@ED0901.HTM">Light
Vehicle Sales (SAAR, Mil. Units)</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">March Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>9.83</td>
<td>9.12</td>
<td>9.57</td>
<td>-34.9%</td>
<td>13.17</td>
<td>16.16</td>
<td>16.54</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Autos</td>
<td>5.05</td>
<td>4.63</td>
<td>4.60</td>
<td>-32.6</td>
<td>6.71</td>
<td>7.58</td>
<td>7.77</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Domestic</td>
<td>3.23</td>
<td>2.89</td>
<td>2.84</td>
<td>-33.9</td>
<td>4.42</td>
<td>5.07</td>
<td>5.31</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Imported</td>
<td>1.83</td>
<td>1.74</td>
<td>1.76</td>
<td>-30.1</td>
<td>2.29</td>
<td>2.52</td>
<td>2.45</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Light Trucks</td>
<td>4.78</td>
<td>4.50</td>
<td>4.97</td>
<td>-37.1</td>
<td>6.47</td>
<td>8.60</td>
<td>8.78</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Domestic</td>
<td>3.70</td>
<td>3.40</td>
<td>3.91</td>
<td>-40.3</td>
<td>5.29</td>
<td>7.10</td>
<td>7.42</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Imported</td>
<td>1.09</td>
<td>1.10</td>
<td>1.06</td>
<td>-23.0</td>
<td>1.18</td>
<td>1.47</td>
<td>1.37</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Initial Claims for Jobless
Insurance Rise To The Highest Level Since 1982; Continuing Claims Reach
A Record 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> April 2, 2009


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090402c.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
There has been no letup in the U.S. labor market's distress.
Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose last week to the highest
level since the sharp recession of 1982. The figure of 669,000 was up
from an unrevised 657,000 during the prior week and it surpassed
Consensus expectations for 650,000 claims.
The Labor Department indicated that the largest increases in
initial claims for the week ending March 21 were in California
(+6,720), Missouri (+2,942), Kansas (+2,018), Oklahoma (+1,406), and
Iowa (+1,134), while the largest decreases were in Texas (-4,822), New
York (-3,172), Tennessee (-2,707), Illinois (-1,485), and Virginia
(-1,407).
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance reached yet
another record high of 5,728,000 and remained nearly double
that of last March. The series dates back to 1966. The
four-week average of continuing claims also rose to another record of
5,496,500. Continuing claims provide some indication of workers'
ability to find employment and they lag the initial claims figures by
one week.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090402d.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Though the latest level of continuing claims was a record, the
labor force has grown as well, by nearly 30% over the last twenty
years. Therefore, the insured rate of unemployment is not at a record
high. It rose to 4.3% which was the highest since 1983. During the last
ten years there has been a 93% correlation between the level of the
insured unemployment rate and the overall rate of unemployment
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The 4.3% insured unemployment rate by far understates labor
market distress in some states. The highest insured unemployment rates
in the week ending March 14 were in Michigan (8.1 percent), Oregon
(7.7), Rhode Island (7.3), Idaho (7.2), Pennsylvania (7.0), Wisconsin
(6.8), Nevada (6.3), Montana (6.1), Alaska (6.0), and Vermont (6.0).
The unemployment insurance claim data is available in Haver's WEEKLY
database.
Fed Confronts
Financial Crisis by Expanding Its Role as Lender of Last Resort
from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas can be found <a href="http://dallasfed.org/research/eclett/2009/el0902.html">
here</a>.
A Framework for Analyzing Bank Lending is
Tuesday's speech by Fed Governor Elizabeth A. Duke and it is available <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/duke20090330a.htm">
here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment
Insurance (000s)</a>&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">03/28/09</th>
<th scope="col">03/21/09</th>
<th scope="col">03/13/09</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>669</td>
<td>657</td>
<td>644</td>
<td>72.0%</td>
<td>420</td>
<td>321</td>
<td>313</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>5,728</td>
<td>5,567</td>
<td>95.8%</td>
<td>3,342</td>
<td>2,552</td>
<td>2,459</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Factory Inventory
Decumulation At A Record Pace 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> April 2, 2009


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090402e.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The manufacturing sector continued to shed inventories during
February at a record rate. A 1.2% cutback followed declines of 1.1% and
1.9% during the prior two months. Moreover, that amounted to a 15.4%
annualized rate of stockpile decumulation which was a record for a
three-month period. The series dates back to 1958. Of course, that
accelerated rate stems somewhat from the 72.0% rate of decline in
petroleum inventories, due mostly to lower prices. Nevertheless,
excluding oil factory inventories fell roughly 1.0% during the last two
months. The 10.6% three-month rate of decumulation was only slightly
exceeded in 2001.
The three-month rates of inventory destocking in several
industries have been more than notable. Inventories of electrical
equipment &amp; appliances have fallen at a 27.6% rate while
textile product inventories were down at a 36.6% clip. Steep production
cutbacks pulled furniture inventories down at a 21.7% rate since
November while inventories of primary metals fell at a 32.9% pace.
Lesser rates of decline were registered in the machinery industry
(-4.7%) and by computers &amp; electronic products (2.3%).<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090402f.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Factory shipments continued lower during February prompting
the continued lowering of inventory levels. Shipments fell a modest
0.1% but even excluding oil and its lower prices shipments fell at
17.8% rate over the last three months. That was led by a 67.1% rate of
decline in automobile shipments. Electrical equipment shipments also
fell hard at a 22.8% rate and computers were off at a 20.8% rate. In
the nondurable goods area, apparel shipments fell at a 16.4% rate,
about the same as for paper products.
Total factory orders recovered during February roughly half of
the sharp January drop but over three months the decline was at a 24%
annual rate. That was led by a 26% rate of decline in computer orders
while motor vehicle orders fell at a 25.1% rate and electrical
equipment orders fell at a 13.2% rate.As for order backlogs, they are
easing substantially. Sharp declines during the last three months have
been at a record 18.1% annual rate.
The Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories and Orders (MSIO)
data is available in Haver's USECON database.
What do we know and not know about potential output?
from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco can be found <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/papers/2009/wp09-05bk.pdf">
here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED01/@ED0101/@ED01016/@ED01016.HTM">Factory
Survey</a> (NAICS, %)</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Inventories</td>
<td>-1.2</td>
<td>-1.1</td>
<td>-2.0</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>8.2&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding
Transportation</td>
<td>-1.4</td>
<td>-1.2</td>
<td>-4.8</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>7.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">New Orders</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>-3.5</td>
<td>-18.8</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>6.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding
Transportation</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>-2.4</td>
<td>-15.1</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>7.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Shipments</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-2.6</td>
<td>-14.8</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>5.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding
Transportation</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-2.4</td>
<td>-14.0</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>6.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unfilled Orders</td>
<td>-1.4</td>
<td>-2.0</td>
<td>-1.7</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>17.1</td>
<td>15.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding
Transportation</td>
<td>-1.5</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
<td>-6.0</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>8.2</td>
<td>16.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
French PPI Shows Year/YearWeakness 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> April 2, 2009


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090402g.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Headline and sector inflation rates for France are showing
consistent declines. The core is also on a decelerating trend.
Excluding construction the PPI is falling over rapidly. Anyway you cut
the inflation signals at the PPI level France is showing weakness in
prices. 
 

Still, at the Summit in London, French and German leaders are
focused on patching up the global regulatory system. The persisting
downward pressure on prices suggests that weak growth is still public
enemy number one. The ECB got on board today with a rate cut, but once
again it was about half the magnitude of the cut that the market
expected. Markets retreated after early day strong advances when they
saw the meager cut. Markets regained some ground on the Trichet remark
that there could be more cuts. Markets are playing attention to
everything. 
 

European nations are better protected from bad times compared
to the US as evidenced by their higher continuing rates of unemployment
and more generous social welfare programs. 
 

But the recent backtracking in the Baltic Dry index and
continuing sharp downward pressure on inflation of all sorts in France
are harsh reminders that the recession is still with us and is still
virulent. France was one of the few EMU countries in which the Markit
Manufacturing PMI rose in March. Even so in the EU-Commission scheme of
things France&#8217;s industrial sector slipped in March, consumer confidence
stayed at a cycle low, the services sector was on a cycle low and
overall sentiment continued to slip. Weakening price trend are just
another way to underscore this sort of very broad weakness. It is hard
to look at the current needs of the global economy and to square it
with some of the policy work being done in international forums and by
central banks. Being mindful of fiscal discipline is good and wary of
setting of inflation too, but there is a time and place for those
worries and this time and place seem inappropriate for them. 
 

Still European stock markets are hopeful of some sort of turn
in the economy and they are improving. That fits the policy tack of the
European policymakers which is to not worry about growth because enough
has been done. The ECB wants to turn attention to being mindful of
launching irascible inflation trends by not overdoing it. The mixed
signals of the times offer justification for just about anything. Only
time will tell if an opportunity was missed or a hand overplayed. 
 
 


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8" scope="col">France PPI
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="3">m/m</td>
<td colspan="4">Saar</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>Feb-09</td>
<td>Jan-09</td>
<td>Dec-08</td>
<td>3-Mo</td>
<td>6-Mo</td>
<td>Yr/Yr</td>
<td>Y/Y Yr Ago</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>-15.6%</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-2.4%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>-2.7%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>-16.6%</td>
<td>-8.7%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Investment</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">PPI excl Food and
Energy</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>-8.6%</td>
<td>-4.4%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">HIPP excl Constructions</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>-2.2%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>-18.9%</td>
<td>-13.0%</td>
<td>-2.9%</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Shaded
growth rates lag by one -month</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

<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>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401g.jpg" width="353">
The National Association of Realtors indicated that pending sales of existing homes during February edged up 2.1% after the sharp 7.7% decline during January. The decline left sales so far this year 6.4% below the 2008 average after last year&#39;s 9.5% decline. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.5% February slip.
The home sales figures are analogous to the new home sales data from the Commerce Department in that they measure existing home sales when the sales contract is signed, not at the time the sale is closed. The series dates back to 2001.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401h.jpg" width="353">
Lower prices continued to bolster home sales. The median sales price of an existing home rose in February (-15.5% y/y) after seven straight months of decline. Prices were down by one quarter from their peak during June 2007. Lower prices combined with lower interest rates to significantly raise the affordability index of a home by 26.5% year-to-year and by three quarters from the 2006 low. The latest level was a record high for the series which extends back to 1970.
Weak home sales are encouraging potential sellers to keep their homes off the market. The Realtors Association indicated in an earlier report that the number of homes on the market and available for sale fell by 5.5% during February versus one year earlier.
At the current sales rate there was a 9.7 months&#39; supply of homes on the market and there was a 10.4 months&#39; supply during all of last year, up from the 8.9 months supply during 2007 and 6.5 months during 2006. For single family homes, there was a 9.1 months&#39; supply in February versus a full-year figure of 10.0 months during 2008.
The pending home sales data are available in Haver&#39;s PREALTOR database. The number of homes on the market and prices are in the REALTOR database.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Pending Home Sales (2001=100)&nbsp;</a></th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>82.1</td>
<td>80.4</td>
<td>&nbsp;&nbsp; -1.4%</td>
<td>86.8</td>
<td>95.8</td>
<td>112.1&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Northeast</td>
<td>63.9</td>
<td>57.8</td>
<td>-11.3</td>
<td>72.6</td>
<td>85.6</td>
<td>98.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Midwest</td>
<td>83.1</td>
<td>72.6</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>80.6</td>
<td>89.5</td>
<td>102.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; South</td>
<td>85.8</td>
<td>82.2</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>89.8</td>
<td>107.3</td>
<td>127.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; West</td>
<td>89.6</td>
<td>103.6</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>99.3</td>
<td>92.1</td>
<td>109.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The National Association of Realtors indicated that pending sales of existing homes during February edged up 2.1% after the sharp 7.7% decline during January. The decline left sales so far this year 6.4% below the 2008 average after [...]

U.S. Pending Home Sales Tick Higher

<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>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401i.jpg" width="353">
Perhaps the worst news on construction activity has passed. However, the industry detail suggests not to count on it. The value of construction put-in-place slipped just 0.9% during February following three consecutive months of decline in excess of 3%. Consensus expectations had been for a 1.7% drop.
A 0.3% increase in the value of nonresidential building activity was the source of the February surprise. It followed three consecutive months of decline between 1% and 4% which reflected the lagged effects of economic recession and the collapse of corporate profits. Those forces are ongoing. February increases in the lodging, health care, amusement and transportation sectors accounted for most of the overall increase in activity, but the gains made up at best half of the January declines. Spending on office construction was roughly flat after four months of sharp decline while the food/beverage, multi-retail, commercial, power and highways &amp; streets sectors continued down.
Residential building activity continued its downward march with a 4.3% decline after the similar 3.7% January drop. Single-family construction activity fell another 10.9% and remained off by nearly one half year-to-year. Building activity on multi-family units also was weak (-11.2% y/y) though spending on improvements repeated the January gain and rose 1.9% (-6.9% y/y).<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401j.jpg" width="353">
During the last twenty years there has been an 84% correlation between the q/q change in the value of residential building and its contribution to growth in real GDP.
Public construction edged up just 0.8% after two months of sharp decline. Again, the recession&#39;s effect on tax revenues may be taking hold. The level of activity for January and February was 1.8% below 2008. The value of spending on transportation facilities edged up just 0.8% (-4.7% y/y) after three months of sharp decline. Spending on highways &amp; streets also fell for the third straight month (+3.0% y/y). The value of construction on highways &amp; streets is roughly one-third of the value of total public construction spending.
The more detailed categories of construction represent the Census Bureau&#146;s reclassification of construction activity into end-use groups. Finer detail is available for many of the categories; for instance, commercial construction is shown for automotive sales and parking facilities, drugstores, building supply stores, and both commercial warehouses and mini-storage facilities. Note that start dates vary for some seasonally adjusted line items in 2000 and 2002, and that constant-dollar data are no longer computed.
The construction put-in-place figures are available in Haver&#39;s USECON database.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E907/@E907.HTM">Construction</a> (%)</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>-3.5</td>
<td>-10.0</td>
<td>-5.7</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>6.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Private</td>
<td>-1.6</td>
<td>-4.0</td>
<td>-15.0</td>
<td>-9.8</td>
<td>-6.9</td>
<td>5.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Residential</td>
<td>-4.3</td>
<td>-3.7</td>
<td>-29.8</td>
<td>-27.7</td>
<td>-19.8</td>
<td>1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonresidential</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>-4.3</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>14.9</td>
<td>19.6</td>
<td>16.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Public</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>-2.4</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>6.7</td>
<td>12.3</td>
<td>9.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Perhaps the worst news on construction activity has passed. However, the industry detail suggests not to count on it. The value of construction put-in-place slipped just 0.9% during February following three consecutive months of [...]

U.S. Construction Spending; A More Moderate Decline

Robert Brusca

<!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>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401f.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
With the advent of Japan&#8217;s Tankan report, the US-UK Japan
point of view will line up on the side of more stimulus. It is not
clear that they have enough support to carry the day, however. Germany
is still opposed to more stimulus now and that position has been stated
again today. Both France and Germany want progress on regulation. Each
has said it wants real progress and agreement on a series of key
principles. So it&#8217;s not clear how these very different priorities will
play out at the summit. Where the US president says unity is the most
important theme, claiming that differences among G-20 members have been
exaggerated by the press. Wow, no wonder so many newspapers are failing. 
 

Japan&#8217;s Tankan is a worst-ever reading for large corporate
participants in the survey. Each of the survey categories across
various industries points to full period lows. Personal services at
large enterprises are an exception but not much of one. 
 

The MFG reading fell to -58 in Q1-2009 from -24 in Q4-2008.
Non MFG fell to -31 in Q1 from -9 in 2008-Q4. 
 

The MFG outlook index for large firms has dropped to -51 in
2009-Q1 from -36 in 2008-Q4. For non MFG firms the drop in the outlook
is to -30 in Q1 from -14 in 2008-Q4. These are deeply negative numbers
and represent sharp deteriorations from already weak readings in Q4. 
 

Medium and small companies have a similar unraveling in
progress. 
 

Japan has seen its domestic auto production fall sharply as
its exports have been hammered. The exports are lower by over 50%
Yr/Yr. Export markets have generally dried up as recession forces hit
hard on the cusp of the third to fourth quarter last year. Japan is
caught as its main exports are to the US, a very weak economy, and to
China where some growth remains in train but where its exports, too are
being clobbered. As of January US imports from Japan are down by 30%
Yr/Yr. Japan is burdened by a large outstanding balance of public debt
and as a rising yen value has crimped its competitiveness in a fading
market. 
 


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr><th colspan="8" scope="col">Tankan Results Large Enterprises </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="4">Readings</td>
<td colspan="2">Averages</td>
<td>PERCENTILES</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Q1-09</td>
<td>Q4-08</td>
<td>Q3-08</td>
<td>Q2-08</td>
<td>1-Y Avg</td>
<td>Since Q3'03</td>
<td>Since Q1'04</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG</td>
<td>-58.0</td>
<td>-24.0</td>
<td>-3.0</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>-41.0</td>
<td>12.1</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">NonMFG</td>
<td>-31.0</td>
<td>-9.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>-20.0</td>
<td>11.7</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Industry</td>
<td>-45.0</td>
<td>-16.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>7.0</td>
<td>-30.5</td>
<td>11.9</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Construction</td>
<td>-27.0</td>
<td>-10.0</td>
<td>-7.0</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>-18.5</td>
<td>-4.5</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Real Estate</td>
<td>-21.0</td>
<td>-7.0</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>22.0</td>
<td>-14.0</td>
<td>27.7</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Wholesale</td>
<td>-44.0</td>
<td>-7.0</td>
<td>11.0</td>
<td>12.0</td>
<td>-25.5</td>
<td>14.1</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Retail</td>
<td>-42.0</td>
<td>-18.0</td>
<td>-5.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>-30.0</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Transportation</td>
<td>-46.0</td>
<td>-7.0</td>
<td>6.0</td>
<td>16.0</td>
<td>-26.5</td>
<td>10.9</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Services 4 Biz</td>
<td>-21.0</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>20.0</td>
<td>-11.0</td>
<td>20.0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Personal Serv</td>
<td>-9.0</td>
<td>-11.0</td>
<td>6.0</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>-10.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Restaurants &amp; Hotels</td>
<td>-45.0</td>
<td>-32.0</td>
<td>-13.0</td>
<td>-14.0</td>
<td>-38.5</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Forecast</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Q2-09</td>
<td>Q1-09</td>
<td>Q4-08</td>
<td>Q3-08</td>
<td>1-Y Avg</td>
<td>Since Q3'03</td>
<td>Since Q1'04</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG-OtLk</td>
<td>-51.0</td>
<td>-36.0</td>
<td>-4.0</td>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>-21.8</td>
<td>10.4</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">NonMFG -Otlk</td>
<td>-30.0</td>
<td>-14.0</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>-9.3</td>
<td>11.4</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">All Industry-Otlk</td>
<td>-41.0</td>
<td>-25.0</td>
<td>-2.0</td>
<td>6.0</td>
<td>-15.5</td>
<td>10.8</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Tankan Results Medium
Enterprises</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Q1-09</td>
<td>Q4-08</td>
<td>Q3-08</td>
<td>1-Y Avg</td>
<td>1-Y Avg</td>
<td>Since Q3'03</td>
<td>Since Q1'04</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG</td>
<td>-57.0</td>
<td>-24.0</td>
<td>-8.0</td>
<td>-22.8</td>
<td>-22.8</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">NonMFG</td>
<td>-37.0</td>
<td>-21.0</td>
<td>-12.0</td>
<td>-18.8</td>
<td>-18.8</td>
<td>-3.3</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Forecast</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Q2-09</td>
<td>Q1-09</td>
<td>Q4-08</td>
<td>Q3-08</td>
<td>1-Y Avg</td>
<td>Since Q3'03</td>
<td>Since Q1'04</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG-OtLk</td>
<td>-61.0</td>
<td>-45.0</td>
<td>-12.0</td>
<td>-5.0</td>
<td>-30.8</td>
<td>-2.0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">NonMFG -Otlk</td>
<td>-45.0</td>
<td>-32.0</td>
<td>-17.0</td>
<td>-10.0</td>
<td>-26.0</td>
<td>-5.6</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">All Industry-Otlk</td>
<td>-51.0</td>
<td>-38.0</td>
<td>-15.0</td>
<td>-9.0</td>
<td>-28.3</td>
<td>-4.1</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Tankan Results Small
Enterprises</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Q2-09</td>
<td>Q1-09</td>
<td>Q4-08</td>
<td>Q3-08</td>
<td>1-Y Avg</td>
<td>Since Q3'03</td>
<td>Since Q1'04</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG</td>
<td>-57.0</td>
<td>-29.0</td>
<td>-17.0</td>
<td>-43.0</td>
<td>-43.0</td>
<td>-5.5</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">NonMFG</td>
<td>-42.0</td>
<td>-29.0</td>
<td>-24.0</td>
<td>-35.5</td>
<td>-35.5</td>
<td>-14.9</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Industry</td>
<td>-42.0</td>
<td>-29.0</td>
<td>-24.0</td>
<td>-35.5</td>
<td>-35.5</td>
<td>-14.9</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Forecast</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Q2-09</td>
<td>Q1-09</td>
<td>Q4-08</td>
<td>Q3-08</td>
<td>1-Y Avg</td>
<td>Since Q3'03</td>
<td>Since Q1'04</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG-OtLk</td>
<td>-63.0</td>
<td>-48.0</td>
<td>-25.0</td>
<td>-15.0</td>
<td>-37.8</td>
<td>-8.2</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">NonMFG -Otlk</td>
<td>-52.0</td>
<td>-42.0</td>
<td>-31.0</td>
<td>-27.0</td>
<td>-38.0</td>
<td>-19.0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">All Industry-Otlk</td>
<td>-56.0</td>
<td>-44.0</td>
<td>-29.0</td>
<td>-22.0</td>
<td>-37.8</td>
<td>-15.1</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

With the advent of Japan’s Tankan report, the US-UK Japan point of view will line up on the side of more stimulus. It is not clear that they have enough support to carry the day, however. Germany is still opposed to more stimulus now [...]

Japan TANKAN Makes Heavy Weight for Pre-Summit

<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>
 



<img align="left" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401e.jpg">
The outplacement firm of Challenger, Grey &amp; Christmas reported that March job cut announcements eased for the second month to 150,411 following 186,350 layoffs during February. Both of the figures were down from the cycle high of 241,749 reached in January. Challenger also reported that announced hiring plans picked up somewhat from February.
Announcements of job cuts in the pharmaceutical industry were a strong 17,796 which was the second most on record. Announcements in the electronics industry also were strong. Another 11,550 jobs were shed and that was near the rate of decline during the prior three months.
Job cut announcements in the automotive sector eased sharply to 6,806 after a huge jump during February and the financial business shed 8,651 jobs. Employment in the retail industry fell 3,821 after the 18,759 February cut. Employment in the industrial goods industry also fell a more moderate 8,787. The computer industry shed 5,290 after the 3,960 February cutback.
During the last ten years there has been a 67% (inverse) correlation between the three month moving average of announced job cuts and the three month change payroll employment.
Job cut announcements differ from layoffs. Many are achieved through attrition, early retirement or just never occur.
The Challenger figures are available in Haver&#39;s SURVEYS database.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S3/@S301/@S301.HTM">Challenger, Gray &amp; Christmas</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Announced Job Cuts</td>
<td>150,411</td>
<td>186,350</td>
<td>180.7%</td>
<td>1,223,993</td>
<td>768,264</td>
<td>839,822</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The outplacement firm of Challenger, Grey & Christmas reported that March job cut announcements eased for the second month to 150,411 following 186,350 layoffs during February. Both of the figures were down from the cycle high of [...]

Challenger Layoffs Ease Slightly Second Month

<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>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401c.jpg" width="353">
The March composite index of activity in the manufacturing sector from the Institute for Supply Management improved slightly to 36.3 from 35.8 in February. Though the latest figure was still near the lowest level since the recession year of 1980, the index has remained in a range of 33 to 37 during the last five months. The break-even level for this diffusion index of factory sector activity is a level of 50.
During the last twenty years there has been a 72% correlation between the level of the composite index and the three-month growth in factory sector industrial production. The latest reading of the composite index suggests that the recent 10% rate of decline in industrial output will continue.
It is appropriate to correlate the ISM index level with factory sector growth because the ISM index is a diffusion index. It measures growth by using all of the positive changes in activity added to one half of the zero change in activity measures.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401d.jpg" width="353">
Improvement in the new orders index has been sharp since its December low as 28% of survey participants reported higher orders versus a low of 5%. Even the export order index improved modestly to a still low 39.0 versus the December reading of 35.5. Nevertheless, it remained near the lowest level in this index&#39;s short twenty year history. During the last ten years there has been a 53% correlation between the index and the q/q change in real exports of goods in the GDP accounts.
The production component was about unchanged after sharp improvement in January and February. Offsetting these gains were sharp declines in the vendor deliveries index to the lowest level since 1989. The inventory index was weak and fell to the lowest level since 1982.
The separate index of prices paid improved slightly but it remained near the record low. During the last twenty years there has been a 79% correlation between the price index and the three-month change in the PPI for intermediate goods.
The ISM data is available in Haver&#39;s USECON database.
How Will a Credit Crunch Affect Small Business Finance? from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is available <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2009/el2009-09.pdf">here</a>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S2/@S201/@S201.HTM">ISM Mfg</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">March &#39;08</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Composite Index</td>
<td>36.3</td>
<td>35.8</td>
<td>49.0</td>
<td>45.5</td>
<td>51.1</td>
<td>53.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; New Orders Index</td>
<td>41.2</td>
<td>33.1</td>
<td>47.1</td>
<td>42.1</td>
<td>54.3</td>
<td>55.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Employment Index</td>
<td>28.1</td>
<td>26.1</td>
<td>49.3</td>
<td>43.2</td>
<td>50.5</td>
<td>51.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid Index (NSA)</td>
<td>31.0</td>
<td>29.0</td>
<td>83.5</td>
<td>66.5</td>
<td>64.6</td>
<td>65.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The March composite index of activity in the manufacturing sector from the Institute for Supply Management improved slightly to 36.3 from 35.8 in February. Though the latest figure was still near the lowest level since the recession [...]

Rise In ISM Index Suggests Factory Sector Stabilization

<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>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401a.jpg" width="353">
According to the payroll processor ADP in the latest National Employment Report, private nonfarm payrolls fell 742,000 last month after a 706,000 decline. The February figure was revised from the initial estimate of a 697,000 drop. The latest reading was the fourteenth consecutive monthly decline. Moreover, the annualized rate of decline in payrolls accelerated to 7.2% during the last three months, a record for the series which dates back only to 2001. Last month medium sized payrolls fell 330,000 (-4.5% y/y) followed by a 284,000 (-3.3% y/y) worker decline in small sized payrolls. Large payrolls fell by 128,000 (-4.7% y/y).
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics will report payroll employment this Friday. For comparison, February&#39;s 706,000 worker decline (-3.4% y/y) in ADP&#39;s measure of private nonfarm payrolls was accompanied by a 660,000 worker decline (-3.7% y/y) in the BLS measure of private sector payrolls. According to ADP and Macro Advisers, the correlation between the monthly percentage change in the ADP estimate and that in the BLS data is 0.90.
ADP reported that weakness in the goods producing sector resulted in 327,000 fewer jobs last month (-10.1% y/y). Medium sized payrolls fell 152,000 (-10.5% y/y) followed by a 111,000 (-9.3% y/y) shortfall in small sized payrolls. Large payrolls fell 64,000 (-10.5% y/y). In the manufacturing sector alone, payrolls fell 206,000 (-10.1% y/y). It has fallen in almost every month since 2001.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401b.jpg" width="353">
Employment in the service producing industry continued to fall sharply. The 415,000 (-2.6% y/y) decline was the twelfth consecutive monthly decline. Medium sized service payrolls fell 178,000 (-2.9% y/y) and small sized payrolls were off 173,000 (-2.2% y/y). Large service producing payrolls dropped by 64,000 (-3.0% y/y).
ADP compiled the estimate from its database of individual companies&#39; payroll information. Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, the St. Louis economic consulting firm, developed the methodology for transforming the raw data into an economic indicator.
The ADP National Employment Report data is maintained in Haver&#39;s USECON database; historical figures date back to December 2000. The figures in this report cover only private sector jobs and exclude employment in the public sector, which rose an average 11,083 during the last twelve months. 
The full ADP National Employment Report can be found <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/pdf/final_report_march_09.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/FINAL_Report_june_09.pdf">here</a>, and the ADP methodology is explained <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/ADPNERMethodology.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/ADPNERMethodology.pdf">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EB/@EB25/@EB25.HTM">LAXEPA@USECON</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Nonfarm Private Payroll Employment (m/m Chg.)</td>
<td>-742,000</td>
<td>-706,000</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

According to the payroll processor ADP in the latest National Employment Report, private nonfarm payrolls fell 742,000 last month after a 706,000 decline. The February figure was revised from the initial estimate of a 697,000 drop. [...]

ADP Report: Payroll Employment Down Another 742,000

China's export growth rotating away from the US

More pronounced upward revisions in countries more exposed to AI investment

Stable job openings and hiring rates point to cautious hiring

Global freight costs are on the rise while supply chain pressures are contained

Accelerating positive economic surprises in the G10 are boosting the global economy

Considerably more monetary ease expected from US and UK as Japan tightens

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

PMIs show still-elevated but slowing US inflation

AI boosting US investment in data centers

US productivity growth has been significantly faster than in other major economies

Consumers' short-term US inflation expectations still elevated while longer-term expectations of financial markets are steady

US financial markets have gotten used to elevated policy uncertainty

FOMC now expects more rate cuts going forward than in June

China gaining ASEAN exports while US exports slump

Job openings less than the number unemployed in July for first time since 2021

Reaccelerating goods price inflation along with sticky services inflation clouds the outlook

Falling oil prices aren't pulling down inflation expectations, pointing to a boost from increased tariffs

Equity market exuberance outpacing macroeconomic data

Apart from Japan, Blue Chip forecasters expect further sizable monetary easing

US production rebounded in Q2, but demand continued to slow

US leader, Germany trailer for real GDP growth over past 3 years

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

Service Health

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

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Featured Data Additions

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Andrew Cates

**US trade with Europe** 
Geopolitical tensions surrounding Greenland have abruptly sharpened investor sensitivity to US trade and foreign-policy risk. What might once have been dismissed as rhetorical brinkmanship has taken on greater macro-financial relevance as Donald Trump has coupled renewed interest in Greenland’s strategic importance with explicit threats of higher tariffs on European imports. The first chart below highlights that the US is materially more exposed to EU goods than the EU is to US trade, making any escalation asymmetrically more costly for the US economy. Beyond the direct inflationary impact of higher tariffs, the more immediate risk lies in confidence effects and capital flows: early signs of capital reallocation away from US assets over the past 24 hours suggest that markets could be beginning to price a broader erosion of policy predictability. In this environment, tariffs risk functioning less as a targeted trade tool and more as a systemic confidence shock—tightening financial conditions, unsettling the dollar’s safe-haven status and increasing downside risks to US growth via weaker investment and higher risk premia.

260122Z1.jpg

**Japan’s JGB yields**
That said, recent capital outflows from US assets may owe as much to developments in Japan as to geopolitical and trade-related shocks. While tariff threats and policy unpredictability have clearly unsettled sentiment, an underappreciated driver of the sell-off in US Treasuries has been the sharp repricing in the Japanese government bond market. Renewed domestic political uncertainty and intensifying concerns over Japan’s debt dynamics have triggered a rapid rise in JGB yields, prompting portfolio rebalancing by Japanese investors and reducing the relative appeal of US duration. Given Japan’s role as one of the largest foreign holders of US Treasuries, yield gyrations at home can translate quickly into capital repatriation, hedging adjustments and reduced demand for US bonds. In this sense, recent moves in US yields may reflect less a direct reaction to geopolitical risk and more a globally transmitted capital-flow shock—originating in Japan but felt most acutely in US financial markets.

260122Z2.jpg

**Inflation expectations and oil prices**
Capital-flow dynamics may have also begun to spill over into how markets are pricing US inflation risk and monetary credibility. Historically, medium-term US inflation expectations have remained closely anchored to global energy prices, as illustrated by the strong co-movement between the 5-year forward inflation rate and Brent crude prices. More recently, however, that relationship has begun to fray: inflation expectations have proven notably resilient even as oil prices have softened, suggesting that markets are increasingly pricing political and policy risk rather than cost-push fundamentals alone. Renewed tariff threats under President Trump, combined with heightened geopolitical tensions involving Greenland and transatlantic relations, risk reinforcing concerns that future inflation outcomes could be shaped as much by political intervention as by macroeconomic conditions. Any perception that the Federal Reserve may face constraints on its operational independence would compound this shift—loosening inflation anchors, raising term premia and increasing the sensitivity of capital flows to US policy credibility.

260122Z3.jpg

**UK inflation** 
UK inflation data released this week show a small upside surprise in headline CPI at year-end. Headline CPI inflation specifically rose from 3.2% y/y in November to 3.4% in December, a little more than expected. The chart below shows that the pickup was driven by persistent underlying pressures—most notably in services. While a negative drag from energy prices has largely faded, services inflation continues to account for a disproportionate share of overall price growth, probably reflecting ongoing wage pressures and limited slack in parts of the domestic economy.

260122Z4.jpg

**Wage growth in the US and Europe** 
Labour-market data from the Indeed Hiring Lab reinforce the picture of persistent services-side pressure in the UK inflation mix. As the chart shows, UK posted wage growth remains elevated relative to both the euro area and the US, even though momentum has eased from its 2023 peak. At around the mid-5% range on a three-month moving average basis, UK wage growth is still running at a pace that is difficult to reconcile with a rapid return of services inflation to target. By contrast, posted wage growth in the euro area has slowed more decisively, while the US has seen a sharper deceleration from earlier extremes.

260122Z5.jpg

**China’s property market**
Finally, the Q4 GDP figures released in China this week sit uneasily alongside continued weakness in its domestic property sector, which remains a key drag on both investment and consumption. While Q4 growth of 4.5% y/y brought full-year GDP broadly in line with the authorities’ 5% target, the chart highlights how property-market adjustment is still running deep beneath the surface. Prices of existing homes across China’s 70 cities remain in year-on-year decline, while real estate investment continues to contract sharply, underscoring the scale and persistence of the sector’s retrenchment. This helps explain why fixed asset investment has softened further and why household demand remains subdued, despite more resilient industrial output.

260122Z6.jpg

This week’s data and market moves have been framed by an abrupt escalation in geopolitical tensions surrounding Greenland, which has served as a catalyst for broader financial unease rather than a standalone shock. The episode has sharpened investor focus on US policy predictability, amplifying concerns already evident in the charts on EU–US trade exposure, where tariff threats risk feeding directly into confidence effects and capital flows. At the same time, recent turbulence in Japanese government bonds appears to have been an underappreciated driver of the sell-off in US Treasuries, highlighting how global capital reallocation—rather than geopolitics alone—has contributed to higher US yields. These forces intersect with growing questions around the durability of US monetary credibility, as inflation expectations have shown signs of decoupling from traditional oil-price anchors, raising the sensitivity of markets to any perceived constraints on the Federal Reserve. Beyond the US, UK data delivered a modest upside surprise in headline inflation, with persistent services and wage pressures reinforcing a cautious policy backdrop for the Bank of England. In China, meanwhile, Q4 GDP growth of 4.5% y/y kept full-year expansion aligned with the government’s target, but continued weakness in the property sector remains a significant drag on investment and household confidence. Taken together, the week’s developments point to a global outlook increasingly shaped by geopolitical risk, capital-flow dynamics and domestic  structural constraints, rather than by straightforward cyclical momentum alone.

Charts of the Week: Seeing Green

Sandy Batten

260122N8.jpg

260122C8.jpg

Real GDP increased 4.4% q/q saar in the third quarter of 2025 in the final estimate, up marginally from 4.3% in the first release. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected no revision. Growth from a year ago was unrevised at 2.3% y/y. Growth of corporate profits was revised up to 4.5% q/q not annualized from 4.2% in the previous report.

The revision to GDP mostly reflected slightly stronger nonresidential fixed investment, a larger increase in exports and a smaller decrease in inventory investment. Nonresidential fixed investment increased a revised 3.2% q/q saar versus a 2.8% gain in the previous release. This reflected a smaller decline in structures, a smaller increase in equipment and a larger increase in intellectual property products than previously estimated. Residential investment was revised weaker with a 7.1% quarterly decline versus -5.1% in the previous estimate.

Upon revision, exports rose 9.6% q/q in Q3 versus 8.8% in the first estimate. Consequently, the trade deficit narrowed a little more than in the first estimate, resulting in net exports adding 1.62%-points to overall growth, 0.03%-point more previously estimated. The decline in inventory investment in Q3 was smaller than previously estimated, reducing the drag from inventories by 0.1%-point versus the previous estimate. The decline in inventories subtracted 0.12%-point in Q3 on top of a 3.44%-point subtraction in Q2.

Domestic demand growth remained solid in Q3 but was revised down 0.1%-point. Final sales to domestic purchasers grew a revised 2.8% q/q saar in Q3 versus 2.9% in the first estimate. Final sales to private domestic purchasers increased 2.9% q/q, down slightly from 3.0% previously.

260122O8.jpg

260122P8.jpg

The primary driver of overall growth continued to be personal consumption expenditures. They increased an unrevised 3.5% q/q saar in Q3, adding 2.34%-points to total GDP growth. This reflected a 3.0% increase in spending on goods versus 3.1% previously and a 3.6% gain in spending on services versus 3.7% previously. The rise in government spending was unrevised at 2.2% q/q. However, spending by the federal government was revised slightly slower to 2.7% from 2.9% while spending by state and local governments was revised up slightly to 2.0% from 1.8%.

Key measures of inflation were unrevised. Inflation as measured by the GDP price index remained at 3.8% q/q saar in Q3, but this was up markedly from 2.1% in Q2. Similarly, PCE inflation in Q3 was unrevised at 2.8% versus 2.1% in Q2. Core PCE inflation was also unrevised at 2.9% in Q3.

The GDP data can be found in Haver’s **USECON** and **USNA** databases. **USNA** contains virtually all of the Bureau of Economic Analysis detail in the national accounts. The Action Economics consensus estimates can be found in **AS1REPNA**.

260122Q8.jpg

260122S8.jpg

- Real GDP grew 4.4% q/q saar in Q3 2025, up slightly from 4.3% previously reported.
- The modest upward revision was due mostly to slightly stronger nonresidential fixed investment, a larger increase in exports and a smaller decrease in inventories.
- Growth of domestic demand remained solid in Q3 but was revised down 0.1%-point.
- GDP and PCE inflation were unrevised at 3.8% and 2.8%, respectively. Both are meaningful accelerations from Q2.

U.S. Q3 GDP Growth Revised Slightly Faster

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

260122A2.jpg

260122B2.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance edged up 1,000 to 200,000 in the week ending January 17, from 199,000 in the week ending January 10, revised from 198,000. The four-week moving average of initial claims was 201,500 in the January 17 week, down 3,750 from 205,250 in the January 10 week, revised from 205,000, and reaching the lowest level for this average since January 13, 2024, when it was 200,000.

Federal government employees initially filed 1010 (NSA) jobless insurance claims in the week ended January 10, after filing 646 (NSA) claims in the week ended January 3.

The total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries – also known as “continuing claims” –decreased by 26,000 to 1.849 million in the week ended January 10 from 1.875 million in the week ending January 3, revised from 1.884 million. The four-week moving average was 1.871 million in the latest week, down from 1.887 million in the January 3 week, revised from 1.889 million. The insured unemployment rate remained at 1.2% in the week of January 10, unchanged from previous 6 weeks.

Federal government employees’ continuing benefits claims were 12,977 (NSA) in the week ending January 3, from 12,803 (NSA) in the week of December 27.

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ending January 3, the highest unemployment rates were in Rhode Island (3.27%), New Jersey (3.17%), Washington (2.85%), Minnesota (2.75%), Massachusetts (2.74%), Oregon (2.37%), Connecticut (2.31%), Montana (2.26%), California (2.21%), and Alaska (2.06%). The lowest rates were in Florida (0.29%), North Carolina (0.40%), and Louisiana (0.43%). Rates in other notable states include New York (2.28%), Pennsylvania (2.23%), Illinois (2.21%), and Texas (1.14%). These state data are not seasonally adjusted.

Data on weekly unemployment claims are from the Department of Labor itself, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They begin in 1967 and are contained in Haver’s **WEEKLY** database and summarized monthly in **USECON**. Data for individual states are in **REGIONW** back to December 1986.

260122C2.jpg

260122D2.jpg

U.S. Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance Edged Up in Latest Week

Winnie Tapasanun

260121F.jpg

260121G.jpg

The Pending Home Sales Index, a forward-looking measure of home sales based on contract signings, fell 9.3% m/m to 71.8 in December following unrevised increases of 3.3% in November and 2.4% in October, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). December marked the first m/m fall since July and the steepest since April 2020. The year-on-year rate was -3.0% in December, the first negative y/y reading since September, compared to +2.6% in November and -5.0% in December 2024. The index had fallen 42.6% since its October 2021 high of 125.1. In 2025, the PHSI declined 0.9% after drops of 3.0% in 2024 and 16.1% in 2023.

The m/m fall in December pending home sales occurred alongside a decline in the average 30-year mortgage rate to 6.20% in December, the lowest since September 2024, down from 6.24% in November and 6.25% in October. These rates, while below a peak of 7.62% in October 2023, had remained higher than a low of 5.22% in August 2022 and more than double a record-low 2.68% in December 2020.

Pending home sales decreased m/m in December across all four major regions. The Midwest recorded the sharpest drop, with sales plunging 14.9% (-9.8% y/y) in December—the first m/m decline since September and the deepest since April 2020—after a 1.3% increase in November. Sales in the West slumped 13.3% (-5.1% y/y), the third m/m decrease in four months, following a 9.2% November rebound. Sales in the Northeast slid 11.0% (-3.6% y/y), the first m/m slide since August, after a 1.8% November rise. Sales in the South fell 4.0% (+2.0% y/y), the first m/m fall since June, after a 2.5% November gain.

The pending home sales index measures sales at the time the contract for the purchase of an existing home is signed, similar to the Census Bureau's new home sales data. In contrast, the National Association of Realtors' existing home sales data are recorded when the sale is closed, which is usually a couple of months after the sales contract has been signed. In developing the pending home sales index, the NAR found that the level of monthly sales contract activity leads the level of closed existing home sales by about two months.

The series dates back to 2001 and are available in Haver's **PREALTOR** database. Weekly mortgage interest rates from the Mortgage Bankers Association can be found in the **WEEKLY** database.

- PHSI -9.3% m/m (-3.0% y/y) to 71.8 in Dec., lowest index level since July.
- Home sales m/m down in all four major regions, w/ the Midwest seeing the steepest drop (-14.9%).
- Home sales y/y down in the Northeast, Midwest, and West, but up in the South (+2.0%).

U.S. Pending Home Sales Drop in December Following Four Consecutive M/M Gains

260121N4.jpg

260121O4.jpg

Total construction spending fell 0.6% m/m (-1.5% y/y) in September to $2,164.3 billion following a 0.4% monthly gain in August. However, it rebounded in October, rising 0.5% m/m (-1.0% y/y) to $2,175.2 billion (saar). This is the ninth consecutive month that construction spending has been lower than a year ago. A 0.1% m/m decline in September and an unchanged reading in October had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Over the first ten months of this year, construction spending amounted to $1,825.3 billion, 1.4% below the $1,851.4 billion for the same period in 2024.

Spending on private construction was at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $1,651.3 billion in October, 0.6% above the September estimate of $1,640.8 billion (-3.0% y/y), which fell 0.9% m/m from August. Private residential construction was at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $913.9 billion in October, up 1.3% m/m from September, which declined 1.4% from August. Private nonresidential construction was at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $737.4 billion in October, down 0.2% m/m from September, which also had declined 0.2% in September from August.

The October increase in private residential investment was due entirely to a 4.5% m/m increase in spending on improvements, its largest monthly gain since April 2024, following a 2.2% monthly decline in September. Single family construction fell 1.3% m/m in October, its eight consecutive monthly decline, while multi-family construction slipped 0.2% m/m, its first monthly decline in five months. The decline in private nonresidential construction was more than accounted for by a 0.9% m/m drop in manufacturing construction, its ninth consecutive monthly decline.

The value of public construction spending edged up 0.1% m/m in October to $524.0 billion after having risen 0.4% m/m in September. Of particular importance, educational construction was at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $114.8 billion, up 0.7% m/m in October on top of a 1.1% m/m increase in September. Highway construction was at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $141.6 billion, 0.1% m/m above the September estimate after a 0.4% monthly decline in September from August. Spending on highways and educational facilities are by far the two largest components of public construction spending. Spending on water supply construction at $35.2 billion was also important in October, up 1.2% m/m on top of a 1.5% monthly gain in September.

The construction figures can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. The expectations figure is from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in **AS1REPNA**.

260121P4.jpg

260121Q4.jpg

- Total construction spending fell 0.6% m/m in September but rebounded 0.5% m/m in October.
- Private construction spending slumped 0.9% m/m in September but rose 0.6% m/m in October.
- Private nonresidential construction fell for the fourth consecutive month while private residential construction posted a 1.3% m/m gain.

Economy in Brief: 2009

Jump to:

March U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Increase From 27-Year low

March U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Increase From 27-Year low

U.S. Pending Home Sales Tick Higher

U.S. Construction Spending; A More Moderate Decline

Japan TANKAN Makes Heavy Weight for Pre-Summit

Challenger Layoffs Ease Slightly Second Month

Rise In ISM Index Suggests Factory Sector Stabilization

ADP Report: Payroll Employment Down Another 742,000