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/100308d.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>Economy Watchers in Japan found current business conditions
improving in February for the third successive month. The diffusion
index rose 8.5% from 38.8% in January to 42.1% in February. The index
was more than twice--a 117.0% increase over--that of a year ago. The
index for the total has almost recovered from the big drop last
November as can be seen in the attached chart.</p>
<p>Current conditions in all the components improved in February
as can be seen in the table below and, like the total, were
substantially above February 2009. Eating and Drinking establishments
and retail sales showed growth above the average in February.
Substantial improvements were also found in the corporate sector and in
employment The Current conditions index for Non manufacturing
corporations increased 10.5% between January and February and was
164.4% above the February 2009 index. Comparable figures for
manufacturing corporations were 6.9% and 161.6%. The diffusion index
for employment increased 8.4% in February from January and was over
300% above February, 2009.</p>
<p>The Economy Watchers' overall appraisal of future conditions
is generally more optimistic or less pessimistic that the appraisals of
current conditions but the direction of changes in the future
conditions index are much like those in the current conditions index.
Apparently, the Economy Watchers estimates of future conditions are
highly influenced by their appraisal of current conditions. The
correlation between the two series is .98, as shown in the attached
chart. As for the component series, they, too, show high correlations
between current and future appraisals. Correlations between current and
future conditions for the component series are shown in the table
below. The correlations are high, the lowest being .82 for the Eating
and Drinking establishments.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">ECONOMY
WATCHERS SURVEY</th>
<th scope="col"><b>Feb 10&nbsp;</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Jan 10&nbsp;</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Feb 09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>M/M % Chg</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y% Chg</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Current Conditions
(Diffusion Index %)</td>
<td>42.1</td>
<td>38.8</td>
<td>14.4</td>
<td>8.51</td>
<td>117.01</td>
<td>34.6</td>
<td>28.9</td>
<td>44.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Future
Conditions</td>
<td>44.8</td>
<td>41.9</td>
<td>26.5</td>
<td>6.92</td>
<td>69.06</td>
<td>38.3</td>
<td>31.6</td>
<td>46.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="7" class="firstcol">Current Conditions</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Correlation</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>42.1</td>
<td>38.8</td>
<td>19.4</td>
<td>8.51</td>
<td>117.01</td>
<td colspan="1" rowspan="10"></td>
<td>.98</td>
<td colspan="1" rowspan="10"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Households</td>
<td>40.6</td>
<td>37.4</td>
<td>21.5</td>
<td>8.56</td>
<td>88.84</td>
<td>.97</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Retail Sales</td>
<td>40.6</td>
<td>36.8</td>
<td>21.1</td>
<td>10.33</td>
<td>92.42</td>
<td>.97</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Eating and Drinking</td>
<td>36.0</td>
<td>32.7</td>
<td>17.2</td>
<td>10.09</td>
<td>109.30</td>
<td>.82</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Services</td>
<td>42.1</td>
<td>39.3</td>
<td>22.6</td>
<td>7.12</td>
<td>86.28</td>
<td>.93</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Housing</td>
<td>39.7</td>
<td>38.6</td>
<td>25.0</td>
<td>2.85</td>
<td>58.80</td>
<td>.96</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Corporations</td>
<td>43.8</td>
<td>40.4</td>
<td>16.7</td>
<td>8.42</td>
<td>162.28</td>
<td>.96</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Manufacturing</td>
<td>45.0</td>
<td>42.1</td>
<td>17.2</td>
<td>6.89</td>
<td>161.63</td>
<td>.94</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Nonmanufacturing</td>
<td>43.1</td>
<td>39.0</td>
<td>16.3</td>
<td>10.51</td>
<td>164.42</td>
<td>.97</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Employment</td>
<td>48.0</td>
<td>44.3</td>
<td>11.9</td>
<td>8.35</td>
<td>303.36</td>
<td>.98</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Economy Watchers in Japan found current business conditions improving in February for the third successive month. The diffusion index rose 8.5% from 38.8% in January to 42.1% in February. The index was more than twice--a 117.0% [...]

Economy Watchers In Japan Find Improvement In Current And Future Business Conditions

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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100308c.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>The sharp German recovery in the Yr/Yr growth of industrial
production is being led by an upsurge in intermediate goods output.
Capital goods output is rising briskly as well. Consumer goods continue
to make snail&#8217;s pace progress. Only intermediate goods output is rising
Yr/Yr to any significant degree, but capital goods output now has
broken that threshold as well. Still, on a different venue all this is
turned upside down.</p>
<p>Although the Yr/Yr rise in IP seems to have strong
acceleration across sectors this is NOT confirmed by the sequential
growth rates that look at annualized rates of growth over telescoped
periods. The table shows that the annualized growth rate over three
months for overall IP is just 1.3%, down from 6.8% over six months and
below the Yr/Yr rate of 2.1%.Capital goods and intermediate goods
output have decelerated sharply over three months compared to six
months. But consumer goods output surprisingly is in a sharp
accelerating phase with growth at a 12% pace over three months compared
to an 8% pace over six months and to -1.2% Yr/Yr.</p>
<p>In the brand new quarter consumer output is rising at an 8.8%
annual rate along with intermediate goods where output is up at a
strong 5% pace. Capital goods output is falling by 3.2% early in
2010-Q1. Of course the best news for the sector is that orders have
stepped up their pace in January after a period of meandering weakness.
So whatever hint of slowing or erratic movement we see in the
industrial production report, the sector seems to be well underpinned
by new orders so that IP growth should continue to be strong in the
months to come.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8" scope="col">Total
German IP </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">Saar exept m/m</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Jan-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Dec-09</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Nov-09</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">3-mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">6-mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">12-mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Quarter<br>
to-Date</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">IP total</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>6.8%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Consumer</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>11.9%</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Capital</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>8.1%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-3.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Intermed</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>-4.1%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>11.5%</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;" class="odd">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Memo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Construction</td>
<td>-14.3%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-49.2%</td>
<td>-28.2%</td>
<td>-9.4%</td>
<td>-63.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">MFG IP</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>9.3%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">MFG Orders</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>23.7%</td>
<td>14.2%</td>
<td>19.7%</td>
<td>27.5%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The sharp German recovery in the Yr/Yr growth of industrial production is being led by an upsurge in intermediate goods output. Capital goods output is rising briskly as well. Consumer goods continue to make snail’s pace progress. [...]

German IP Advances

Tom Moeller

<!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/100308a.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">
Consumer
credit outstanding during January posted its first gain in twelve
months. Is a bottom to the year-long retrenchment in the making or will
debt-laden balance sheets force further cutbacks? The $5.0B gain in
credit reported by the Federal Reserve late-Friday was the first
monthly increase in a year and reversed December's $4.6B decline. This
two-month flattening of credit usage follows a record $23.9B November
shortfall. Also a record, year-to-year credit outstanding fell 4.2%.
During the last ten years, there has been a two-thirds correlation
between the y/y change in credit outstanding and the change in personal
consumption expenditures. The January increase contrasted with
Consensus expectations for a $4.5B drop.</p><p>Increased usage of
non-revolving credit (autos &amp; other consumer durables), which
accounts for nearly two-thirds of the total, accounted for the January
increase. <img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100308b.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">
The $6.6B rise followed a $4.9B December increase. Together
they recouped November's drop and since mid-2008 the trend in usage's
level has been sideways. Federal government &amp; Sallie Mae
lending expanded by more than two-thirds y/y during January. That
increase offset an 11.5% decline in pools of securitized assets, a 0.3%
slip in commercial bank lending and a 1.2% fall in credit union
lending.&nbsp;</p><p>Continued cutting of revolving credit usage in January held
back the increase in overall credit usage. It fell $1.7B following much
sharper declines through most of 2009. The latest was part of a record
9.6% y/y decline. Versus January 2009 finance companies lowered lending
by one-quarter, commercial bank lending fell 10.8%, pools of
securitized assets fell 8.8% while savings institutions pulled lending
back 1.0% y/y. Loans from credit unions offset some of these declines
with a 5.4% increase.</p><p>These figures are the major input to the Fed's
quarterly Flow of Funds accounts for the household sector.</p><p>Credit data
are available in Haver's <b>USECON</b> database. The Flow
of Funds data are in Haver's <b>FFUNDS</b> database.<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></p><p><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><b>Stressed,
Not Frozen: The Federal Funds Market in the Financial Crisis</b>
from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can be found here <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr437.pdf">here</a>.&nbsp;</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b>Consumer
Credit Outstanding (m/m Chg, SAAR)</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>December</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>November</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>$5.0B</td>
<td>$-4.6B</td>
<td>$-23.9B</td>
<td>-4.2%</td>
<td>-4.3%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Revolving</td>
<td>$-1.7B</td>
<td>$-9.4B</td>
<td>$-13.7B</td>
<td>-9.6%</td>
<td>-9.6%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>8.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non-revolving</td>
<td>$6.6B</td>
<td>4.9B</td>
<td>$-10.2B</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</span></body></html>

Consumer credit outstanding during January posted its first gain in twelve months. Is a bottom to the year-long retrenchment in the making or will debt-laden balance sheets force further cutbacks? The $5.0B gain in credit reported by [...]

U.S. Consumer Credit Records First Increase in Year

<!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/100308a.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">Consumer
credit outstanding during January posted its first gain in twelve
months. Is a bottom to the year-long retrenchment in the making or will
debt-laden balance sheets force further cutbacks? The $5.0B gain in
credit reported by the Federal Reserve late-Friday was the first
monthly increase in a year and reversed December's $4.6B decline. This
two-month flattening of credit usage follows a record $23.9B November
shortfall. Also a record, year-to-year credit outstanding fell 4.2%.
During the last ten years, there has been a two-thirds correlation
between the y/y change in credit outstanding and the change in personal
consumption expenditures. The January increase contrasted with
Consensus expectations for a $4.5B drop.</p>
<p>Increased usage of
non-revolving credit (autos &amp; other consumer durables), which
accounts for nearly two-thirds of the total, accounted for the January
increase. <img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100308b.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">
The $6.6B rise followed a $4.9B December increase. Together
they recouped November's drop and since mid-2008 the trend in usage's
level has been sideways. Federal government &amp; Sallie Mae
lending expanded by more than two-thirds y/y during January. That
increase offset an 11.5% decline in pools of securitized assets, a 0.3%
slip in commercial bank lending and a 1.2% fall in credit union
lending.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Continued cutting of revolving credit usage in January held
back the increase in overall credit usage. It fell $1.7B following much
sharper declines through most of 2009. The latest was part of a record
9.6% y/y decline. Versus January 2009 finance companies lowered lending
by one-quarter, commercial bank lending fell 10.8%, pools of
securitized assets fell 8.8% while savings institutions pulled lending
back 1.0% y/y. Loans from credit unions offset some of these declines
with a 5.4% increase.</p>
<p>These figures are the major input to the Fed's
quarterly Flow of Funds accounts for the household sector.</p>
<p>Credit data
are available in Haver's <b>USECON</b> database. The Flow
of Funds data are in Haver's <b>FFUNDS</b> database.<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><b>Stressed,
Not Frozen: The Federal Funds Market in the Financial Crisis</b>
from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can be found here <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr437.pdf">here</a>.&nbsp;</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b>Consumer
Credit Outstanding (m/m Chg, SAAR)</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>December</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>November</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>$5.0B</td>
<td>$-4.6B</td>
<td>$-23.9B</td>
<td>-4.2%</td>
<td>-4.3%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Revolving</td>
<td>$-1.7B</td>
<td>$-9.4B</td>
<td>$-13.7B</td>
<td>-9.6%</td>
<td>-9.6%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>8.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non-revolving</td>
<td>$6.6B</td>
<td>4.9B</td>
<td>$-10.2B</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</span>
<span id="articletitle">German IP Advances</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> March 8, 2010</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100308c.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>The sharp German recovery in the Yr/Yr growth of industrial
production is being led by an upsurge in intermediate goods output.
Capital goods output is rising briskly as well. Consumer goods continue
to make snail&#8217;s pace progress. Only intermediate goods output is rising
Yr/Yr to any significant degree, but capital goods output now has
broken that threshold as well. Still, on a different venue all this is
turned upside down.</p>
<p>Although the Yr/Yr rise in IP seems to have strong
acceleration across sectors this is NOT confirmed by the sequential
growth rates that look at annualized rates of growth over telescoped
periods. The table shows that the annualized growth rate over three
months for overall IP is just 1.3%, down from 6.8% over six months and
below the Yr/Yr rate of 2.1%.Capital goods and intermediate goods
output have decelerated sharply over three months compared to six
months. But consumer goods output surprisingly is in a sharp
accelerating phase with growth at a 12% pace over three months compared
to an 8% pace over six months and to -1.2% Yr/Yr.</p>
<p>In the brand new quarter consumer output is rising at an 8.8%
annual rate along with intermediate goods where output is up at a
strong 5% pace. Capital goods output is falling by 3.2% early in
2010-Q1. Of course the best news for the sector is that orders have
stepped up their pace in January after a period of meandering weakness.
So whatever hint of slowing or erratic movement we see in the
industrial production report, the sector seems to be well underpinned
by new orders so that IP growth should continue to be strong in the
months to come.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8" scope="col">Total
German IP </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">Saar
exept m/m</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Jan-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Dec-09</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Nov-09</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">3-mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">6-mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">12-mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Quarter<br>
to-Date</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">IP total</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>6.8%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Consumer</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>11.9%</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Capital</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>8.1%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-3.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Intermed</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>-4.1%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>11.5%</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;" class="odd">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Memo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Construction</td>
<td>-14.3%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-49.2%</td>
<td>-28.2%</td>
<td>-9.4%</td>
<td>-63.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">MFG IP</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>9.3%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">MFG Orders</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>23.7%</td>
<td>14.2%</td>
<td>19.7%</td>
<td>27.5%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<span id="articletitle">Economy Watchers In Japan Find
Improvement&nbsp;In Current And Future Business Conditions</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise
Curley</a> March 8, 2010</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100308d.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>Economy Watchers in Japan found current business conditions
improving in February for the third successive month. The diffusion
index rose 8.5% from 38.8% in January to 42.1% in February. The index
was more than twice--a 117.0% increase over--that of a year ago. The
index for the total has almost recovered from the big drop last
November as can be seen in the attached chart.</p>
<p>Current conditions in all the components improved in February
as can be seen in the table below and, like the total, were
substantially above February 2009. Eating and Drinking establishments
and retail sales showed growth above the average in February.
Substantial improvements were also found in the corporate sector and in
employment The Current conditions index for Non manufacturing
corporations increased 10.5% between January and February and was
164.4% above the February 2009 index. Comparable figures for
manufacturing corporations were 6.9% and 161.6%. The diffusion index
for employment increased 8.4% in February from January and was over
300% above February, 2009.</p>
<p>The Economy Watchers' overall appraisal of future conditions
is generally more optimistic or less pessimistic that the appraisals of
current conditions but the direction of changes in the future
conditions index are much like those in the current conditions index.
Apparently, the Economy Watchers estimates of future conditions are
highly influenced by their appraisal of current conditions. The
correlation between the two series is .98, as shown in the attached
chart. As for the component series, they, too, show high correlations
between current and future appraisals. Correlations between current and
future conditions for the component series are shown in the table
below. The correlations are high, the lowest being .82 for the Eating
and Drinking establishments.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">ECONOMY
WATCHERS SURVEY</th>
<th scope="col"><b>Feb 10&nbsp;</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Jan 10&nbsp;</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Feb 09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>M/M % Chg</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y% Chg</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Current Conditions
(Diffusion Index %)</td>
<td>42.1</td>
<td>38.8</td>
<td>14.4</td>
<td>8.51</td>
<td>117.01</td>
<td>34.6</td>
<td>28.9</td>
<td>44.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Future
Conditions</td>
<td>44.8</td>
<td>41.9</td>
<td>26.5</td>
<td>6.92</td>
<td>69.06</td>
<td>38.3</td>
<td>31.6</td>
<td>46.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="7" class="firstcol">Current Conditions</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Correlation</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>42.1</td>
<td>38.8</td>
<td>19.4</td>
<td>8.51</td>
<td>117.01</td>
<td colspan="1" rowspan="10"></td>
<td>.98</td>
<td colspan="1" rowspan="10"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Households</td>
<td>40.6</td>
<td>37.4</td>
<td>21.5</td>
<td>8.56</td>
<td>88.84</td>
<td>.97</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Retail Sales</td>
<td>40.6</td>
<td>36.8</td>
<td>21.1</td>
<td>10.33</td>
<td>92.42</td>
<td>.97</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Eating and Drinking</td>
<td>36.0</td>
<td>32.7</td>
<td>17.2</td>
<td>10.09</td>
<td>109.30</td>
<td>.82</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Services</td>
<td>42.1</td>
<td>39.3</td>
<td>22.6</td>
<td>7.12</td>
<td>86.28</td>
<td>.93</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Housing</td>
<td>39.7</td>
<td>38.6</td>
<td>25.0</td>
<td>2.85</td>
<td>58.80</td>
<td>.96</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Corporations</td>
<td>43.8</td>
<td>40.4</td>
<td>16.7</td>
<td>8.42</td>
<td>162.28</td>
<td>.96</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Manufacturing</td>
<td>45.0</td>
<td>42.1</td>
<td>17.2</td>
<td>6.89</td>
<td>161.63</td>
<td>.94</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Nonmanufacturing</td>
<td>43.1</td>
<td>39.0</td>
<td>16.3</td>
<td>10.51</td>
<td>164.42</td>
<td>.97</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Employment</td>
<td>48.0</td>
<td>44.3</td>
<td>11.9</td>
<td>8.35</td>
<td>303.36</td>
<td>.98</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

U.S. Consumer Credit Records FirstIncrease in Year

<!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/100305e.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>After dropping in December and raising eyebrows German orders
have raised their game in January jumping by 4.3% month-to-month. Total
orders are now accelerating steadily from twelve-months to six-months
and from six-months to three-months.</p>
<p>Foreign orders rose by 1.9% month to month just offsetting the
drop of 1.7% in December. But domestic orders surged by 7.1% a rise
substantially more than offsetting the 1.3% drop in December. Does this
means that the German domestic economy is now awakened and back in the
game? A weak domestic economy has been the missing link to German
improvement and to sustained EMU growth, which so far has been export
led and therefore a bit uncertain. The German domestic economy still
lags the foreign sector in terms of Yr/Yr order growth but it has now
begun to surpass it over terms of 3-months and 6- months.</p>
<p>Real sector sales trends still show consumer demand dropping
but that is all due to nondurables weakness. In January as consumer
durables sales jumped by 3.5% that spurt added to growth in sales from
capital goods at 2.3%, intermediate goods at 2.2%, and mining/MFG at
1.1%.</p>
<p>Getting Germany on a stronger growth track particularly
because its domestic economy is heating up would be a very positive
development for the Euro-Area where growth has been sputtering and
problems on the financial side have been plaguing the outlook. One good
German number does not seal the deal for a better outlook but it is a
big step in the right direction and one that has been long in coming.
This is not the first spurt in domestic orders we have seen in this
cycle. In July of 2009 they surged by 9.3% only to fall and sputter
over the next three months. It may be that the domestic order series is
just lumpy, so we should hold our praise. But this is a good a sign and
we should watch to see if the trend has legs.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="9" scope="col"> German
Orders and Sales By Sector and Origin</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">Real and SA</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">% M/M</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="5">% Saar</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Jan-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Dec-09</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Nov-09</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">3-MO</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">6-Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">12-Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">YrAgo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">QTR-2-Date</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Orders</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>23.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">11.2%</td>
<td>19.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-34.0%</td>
<td>8.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Foreign</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>16.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">7.8%</td>
<td>24.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-39.6%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Domestic</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>33.2%</td>
<td>15.4%</td>
<td>15.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-27.2%</td>
<td>17.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;">
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol">Real Sector Sales</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG/Mining</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.4%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-20.1%</td>
<td>-2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Consumer</td>
<td>-4.6%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-3.4%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-9.9%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Cons
Durables</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>18.4%</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-15.9%</td>
<td>12.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Cons
Non-Durable</td>
<td>-5.8%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-6.6%</td>
<td>-3.3%</td>
<td>-3.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-8.9%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Captial Gds</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-25.4%</td>
<td>-4.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Gds</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.6%</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-21.4%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">All MFG-Sales</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.4%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-20.3%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

After dropping in December and raising eyebrows German orders have raised their game in January jumping by 4.3% month-to-month. Total orders are now accelerating steadily from twelve-months to six-months and from six-months to three- [...]

Has Germany Found The Missing Link?

<!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/100305a.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100305b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"></p>
<p>Stabilization of labor market conditions was again evident in
the latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. From the
household survey, the unemployment rate held steady for the second
month at 9.7%, down from the October high of 10.1%. In addition, the
payroll survey indicated that a modest 36,000 jobs were lost. Consensus
expectations had been for a slight uptick in the unemployment rate to
9.8% and a deeper payroll decline of 50,000.</p>
<p>The steady unemployment rate owed to a 308,000 increase (-2.1%
y/y) in household employment following a 541,000 January gain. These
increases follow monthly declines of as much as 967,000 during the
recession. Moreover, the labor force started to expand, last month by
342,000, after a lesser January increase. Throughout 2009 the labor
force contracted slightly. The labor force participation rate also rose
slightly; for adult men, it ticked up to 74.0% and for adult women, it
gained to 60.6%.</p>
<p>The 36,000 decline in February payrolls followed a 26,000
January slip that roughly equaled the initial estimate. However, the
December decline of 109,000 was revised from a much deeper 150,000
estimated last month. The decline in payrolls in 2009 now totals 2.5%,
half the recession peak. The three-month change is -0.1%.</p>
<p>The lessened decline in February payrolls stemmed from a 1,000
worker increase in factory sector jobs which was just the second
monthly gain in three years. Private-services payrolls also posted
their third increase in the last four months while severe winter
weather weighed on construction employment. The government indicated
that most other employment categories were negatively affected by the
mid-month blizzard that coincided with the employment survey week.
Bucking this downward pressure was temporary employment which rose
47,500 (3.9% y/y) for the fifth straight monthly gain and the heath
care sector (1.6% y/y). Government employment was notably weak in the
local sector. It fell 31,000 while federal and state hiring both rose.</p>
<p>The diffusion index for employment, which measures the breath
of hiring across industries, rose to 48.0%. That was up from the
recession low of just 16.5% and was the highest in nearly two years. In
the factory sector alone, the index showed net-hiring at 54.9%, the
highest level in three years.</p>
<p>The total workweek suffered from the storm and fell to 33.1
hours which was its least since October. The length of the construction
workweek fell most sharply. The factory workweek unwound three months
of increase but, at 40.3 hours, was nevertheless up sharply from the
recession low. The length of the private services workweek also held
onto its improvement since the June low.</p>
<p>So far in the first quarter, aggregate hours worked
(employment times hours) have risen at a 0.8% annual rate from 4Q after
that quarter's 1.2% decline.</p>
<p>The figures referenced above are available in Haver's <b>USECON</b>
database. Additional detail can be found in the <b>LABOR </b>and
in the <b>EMPL</b> databases.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100305c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100305d.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b>Employment:
000s</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>February</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>December</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Payroll Employment</td>
<td>-36</td>
<td>-26</td>
<td>-109</td>
<td>-2.5%</td>
<td>-4.3%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;Previous</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>-20</td>
<td>-150</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Manufacturing</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>-18</td>
<td>-6.6%</td>
<td>-11.3%</td>
<td>-3.4%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Construction</td>
<td>-64</td>
<td>-77</td>
<td>-36</td>
<td>-13.7%</td>
<td>-15.7%</td>
<td>-6.1%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Private Service Producing</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>-29</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>-3.4%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Government</td>
<td>-18</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>-26</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Average Weekly Hours</td>
<td>33.1</td>
<td>33.3</td>
<td>33.2</td>
<td>33.2 (Feb. '09)</td>
<td>33.1</td>
<td>33.6</td>
<td>33.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Average Hourly Earnings</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate</td>
<td>9.7%</td>
<td>9.7%</td>
<td>10.0%</td>
<td>8.2% (Feb. '09)</td>
<td>9.3%</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Stabilization of labor market conditions was again evident in the latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. From the household survey, the unemployment rate held steady for the second month at 9.7%, down from the October high [...]

U.S. Unemployment Rate Steadies; Payrolls Fall Modestly

<!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/100305a.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100305b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"></p>
<p>Stabilization of labor market conditions was again evident in
the latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. From the
household survey, the unemployment rate held steady for the second
month at 9.7%, down from the October high of 10.1%. In addition, the
payroll survey indicated that a modest 36,000 jobs were lost. Consensus
expectations had been for a slight uptick in the unemployment rate to
9.8% and a deeper payroll decline of 50,000.</p>
<p>The steady unemployment rate owed to a 308,000 increase (-2.1%
y/y) in household employment following a 541,000 January gain. These
increases follow monthly declines of as much as 967,000 during the
recession. Moreover, the labor force started to expand, last month by
342,000, after a lesser January increase. Throughout 2009 the labor
force contracted slightly. The labor force participation rate also rose
slightly; for adult men, it ticked up to 74.0% and for adult women, it
gained to 60.6%.</p>
<p>The 36,000 decline in February payrolls followed a 26,000
January slip that roughly equaled the initial estimate. However, the
December decline of 109,000 was revised from a much deeper 150,000
estimated last month. The decline in payrolls in 2009 now totals 2.5%,
half the recession peak. The three-month change is -0.1%.</p>
<p>The lessened decline in February payrolls stemmed from a 1,000
worker increase in factory sector jobs which was just the second
monthly gain in three years. Private-services payrolls also posted
their third increase in the last four months while severe winter
weather weighed on construction employment. The government indicated
that most other employment categories were negatively affected by the
mid-month blizzard that coincided with the employment survey week.
Bucking this downward pressure was temporary employment which rose
47,500 (3.9% y/y) for the fifth straight monthly gain and the heath
care sector (1.6% y/y). Government employment was notably weak in the
local sector. It fell 31,000 while federal and state hiring both rose.</p>
<p>The diffusion index for employment, which measures the breath
of hiring across industries, rose to 48.0%. That was up from the
recession low of just 16.5% and was the highest in nearly two years. In
the factory sector alone, the index showed net-hiring at 54.9%, the
highest level in three years.</p>
<p>The total workweek suffered from the storm and fell to 33.1
hours which was its least since October. The length of the construction
workweek fell most sharply. The factory workweek unwound three months
of increase but, at 40.3 hours, was nevertheless up sharply from the
recession low. The length of the private services workweek also held
onto its improvement since the June low.</p>
<p>So far in the first quarter, aggregate hours worked
(employment times hours) have risen at a 0.8% annual rate from 4Q after
that quarter's 1.2% decline.</p>
<p>The figures referenced above are available in Haver's <b>USECON</b>
database. Additional detail can be found in the <b>LABOR </b>and
in the <b>EMPL</b> databases.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100305c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100305d.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b>Employment:
000s</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>February</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>December</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Payroll Employment</td>
<td>-36</td>
<td>-26</td>
<td>-109</td>
<td>-2.5%</td>
<td>-4.3%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;Previous</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>-20</td>
<td>-150</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Manufacturing</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>-18</td>
<td>-6.6%</td>
<td>-11.3%</td>
<td>-3.4%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Construction</td>
<td>-64</td>
<td>-77</td>
<td>-36</td>
<td>-13.7%</td>
<td>-15.7%</td>
<td>-6.1%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Private Service Producing</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>-29</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>-3.4%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Government</td>
<td>-18</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>-26</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Average Weekly Hours</td>
<td>33.1</td>
<td>33.3</td>
<td>33.2</td>
<td>33.2 (Feb. '09)</td>
<td>33.1</td>
<td>33.6</td>
<td>33.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Average Hourly Earnings</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate</td>
<td>9.7%</td>
<td>9.7%</td>
<td>10.0%</td>
<td>8.2% (Feb. '09)</td>
<td>9.3%</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<span id="articletitle">Has Germany Found The Missing Link?</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> March 5, 2010</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100305e.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>After dropping in December and raising eyebrows German orders
have raised their game in January jumping by 4.3% month-to-month. Total
orders are now accelerating steadily from twelve-months to six-months
and from six-months to three-months.</p>
<p>Foreign orders rose by 1.9% month to month just offsetting the
drop of 1.7% in December. But domestic orders surged by 7.1% a rise
substantially more than offsetting the 1.3% drop in December. Does this
means that the German domestic economy is now awakened and back in the
game? A weak domestic economy has been the missing link to German
improvement and to sustained EMU growth, which so far has been export
led and therefore a bit uncertain. The German domestic economy still
lags the foreign sector in terms of Yr/Yr order growth but it has now
begun to surpass it over terms of 3-months and 6- months.</p>
<p>Real sector sales trends still show consumer demand dropping
but that is all due to nondurables weakness. In January as consumer
durables sales jumped by 3.5% that spurt added to growth in sales from
capital goods at 2.3%, intermediate goods at 2.2%, and mining/MFG at
1.1%.</p>
<p>Getting Germany on a stronger growth track particularly
because its domestic economy is heating up would be a very positive
development for the Euro-Area where growth has been sputtering and
problems on the financial side have been plaguing the outlook. One good
German number does not seal the deal for a better outlook but it is a
big step in the right direction and one that has been long in coming.
This is not the first spurt in domestic orders we have seen in this
cycle. In July of 2009 they surged by 9.3% only to fall and sputter
over the next three months. It may be that the domestic order series is
just lumpy, so we should hold our praise. But this is a good a sign and
we should watch to see if the trend has legs.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="9" scope="col"> German
Orders and Sales By Sector and Origin</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">Real
and SA</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">%
M/M</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="5">%
Saar</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Jan-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Dec-09</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Nov-09</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">3-MO</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">6-Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">12-Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">YrAgo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">QTR-2-Date</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Orders</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>23.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">11.2%</td>
<td>19.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-34.0%</td>
<td>8.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Foreign</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>16.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">7.8%</td>
<td>24.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-39.6%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Domestic</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>33.2%</td>
<td>15.4%</td>
<td>15.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-27.2%</td>
<td>17.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;">
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol">Real Sector
Sales</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG/Mining</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.4%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-20.1%</td>
<td>-2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Consumer</td>
<td>-4.6%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-3.4%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-9.9%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Cons
Durables</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>18.4%</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-15.9%</td>
<td>12.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Cons
Non-Durable</td>
<td>-5.8%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-6.6%</td>
<td>-3.3%</td>
<td>-3.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-8.9%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Captial Gds</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-25.4%</td>
<td>-4.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Gds</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.6%</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-21.4%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">All MFG-Sales</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.4%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-20.3%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

U.S. Unemployment Rate Steadies;Payrolls Fall Modestly

<!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/100304i.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">
Bad weather
had a noticeable effect on January housing activity. However, the
National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported an outsized effect on
pending home sales which fell 7.6% m/m from December to their lowest
level since March of last year. Nevertheless, home sales remained up
12.3% from the January low. The latest decline compares with Consensus
expectations for a modest increase. The data were revised starting in
2008.</p>
<p> Sharp monthly gains in home sales were recorded across the
country but the largest was out West.</p>
<p>These 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 and the data is available in Haver's <b>PREALTOR </b>database.</p>
<p>The Fed's latest <b>Beige Book </b>covering
regional
economic conditions can be found&nbsp; <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/beigebook/2010/20100303/default.htm">here</a>.&nbsp;</p>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100304j.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100304k.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b><a ;="" href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Pending Home Sales (2001=100)&nbsp;</a></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>December</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>November</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>90.4</td>
<td>97.8</td>
<td>97.0</td>
<td>&nbsp;&nbsp;12.3%</td>
<td>95.1</td>
<td>86.9</td>
<td>95.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Northeast</td>
<td>71.3</td>
<td>78.1</td>
<td>77.4</td>
<td>20.4</td>
<td>76.7</td>
<td>73.0</td>
<td>86.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Midwest</td>
<td>81.2</td>
<td>89.2</td>
<td>84.8</td>
<td>11.8</td>
<td>88.8</td>
<td>80.7</td>
<td>89.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; South</td>
<td>98.1</td>
<td>100.2</td>
<td>98.5</td>
<td>18.1</td>
<td>98.9</td>
<td>90.3</td>
<td>107.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; West</td>
<td>102.9</td>
<td>118.5</td>
<td>122.8</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>109.9</td>
<td>99.2</td>
<td>92.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</span>
</body></html>

Bad weather had a noticeable effect on January housing activity. However, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported an outsized effect on pending home sales which fell 7.6% m/m from December to their lowest level since March [...]

U.S. Pending Home Sales Decline Sharply

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

Negative US inflation surprises leading G10 down

Deflation continues in China

Incoming data surprising on downside in US; positive surprises elsewhere

FOMC expects more inflation and less growth than in March

With escalation of Israel/Iran conflict, geopolitical risk has recently surged while US trade policy uncertainty has ebbed

Renewed supply chain pressures point to a rebound in global inflation ahead

Apart from Japan, Blue Chip forecasters look for further significant monetary policy easing

Apart from the US, productivity is moribund

Financial market concerns ebb even though policy uncertainty continues to soar

US tariff revenues nearly doubled in April

Even with expected tariff-induced increases in inflation, BCFF forecasters look for a more aggressive round of monetary easing

USD/EUR exchange rate uncoupling from interest rate differential

Widespread downgrading of 2025 GDP outlook

Trade and fiscal policy uncertainty has exploded with the new administration

Much lower US electricity costs gives it a competitive advantage

Wage growth slowing in the US and Euro area; elevated and sticky in the UK

Stagflation-lite: Blue Chip forecasts below-trend growth and elevated inflation

US policy gyrations boosting policy uncertainty worldwide

Expected tariff hikes have boosted inflation expectations

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. 

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

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

Andrew Cates

**The US labour market**
The latest data highlight a growing sense of fragility in the US labour market. The unemployment rate, while still relatively low by historical standards, has been edging higher through the course of this year. More telling, however, is the signal from this week’s consumer confidence survey from Conference Board and specifically the labour market differential — the gap between the share of consumers saying jobs are plentiful versus those saying jobs are hard to get. That balance has narrowed sharply, moving back toward levels historically associated with softer labour demand and rising unemployment.

250828Z1.jpg

**Goods and services inflation** 
Haver’s breakdown of goods and services CPI inflation in the advanced economies highlights where fresh risks are emerging. Goods inflation, which had been receding sharply after the pandemic supply shocks, has recently shown signs of firming again. Some of this probably reflects the impact of US tariff policies, which are raising import costs and putting renewed upward pressure on traded goods prices. While services inflation remains the more stubborn component in most advanced economies, the risk is that tariffs could reintroduce stickiness into goods prices, slowing the overall disinflation process.

250828Z2.jpg

**China, Europe and US trade policy**
A consequence of US tariff policies has been a sharp contraction in Chinese exports to the US market, with much of the surplus redirected elsewhere. Europe in particular has recorded near double-digit import growth in recent months, raising concerns that Beijing is deflecting its industrial overcapacity problem rather than resolving it, effectively transferring the pressure onto trading partners. China’s authorities, however, have begun to push back, introducing measures to curb excess supply and rein in so-called “involution,” including clampdowns on price wars across several industries.

250828Z3.jpg

**China’s excess capacity and Europe**
A closer look at Europe–China trade shows that electric vehicles remain a key flashpoint. Import volumes from China have continued to rise even as per-unit prices fall sharply from a year ago —evidence suggesting that industrial overcapacity persists, with low-cost Chinese EVs increasingly challenging European automakers. The surge has carried on despite EU tariffs of up to 45% on battery EVs, as Chinese producers have adapted by pushing plug-in hybrids and expanding onshore production in Europe to bypass duties and defend market share.

250828Z4.jpg

**Wage growth in the US and Europe** 
Turning back to inflation dynamics, the UK stands out for its persistent wage pressures. While posted wage growth has cooled across the US and euro area, the UK measure has remained elevated at around 6% year-on-year, well above pre-pandemic norms. This stickiness reflects a still-tight labour market in key service sectors, even as broader activity has slowed and unemployment has edged higher. For the Bank of England, it underscores the dilemma: headline inflation is easing, but underlying pay growth risks keeping services inflation uncomfortably high, complicating the timing and scale of policy easing.

250828Z5.jpg

**The UK economy**
The UK’s net international investment position has deteriorated noticeably in recent years, with both direct investment and portfolio flows showing persistent weakness. The latest data underline how net FDI has turned increasingly negative, while the portfolio investment balance has also eroded, leaving the UK more reliant on volatile short-term funding sources. This deterioration comes against a backdrop of heightened investor unease about the riskiness of UK debt markets, where elevated gilt yields and rising debt-servicing costs have amplified concerns over fiscal sustainability. Taken together, these trends underscore the vulnerability of the UK’s external position at a time when global capital is arguably proving more selective and risk sensitive.

250828Z6.jpg

Global markets have continued to rally into late summer, buoyed by AI optimism, dovish signals from central bankers at Jackson Hole, and expectations of easier policy ahead. Yet beneath the surface, risks to the world economy are accumulating. In the US, labour market indicators point to softening conditions (chart 1), while tariff-driven pressures are beginning to push goods prices higher (chart 2). Global trade flows are being reshaped by US policy, with China’s excess capacity increasingly diverted toward Europe, most visibly through surging exports of electric vehicles (EVs) (charts 3 and 4). At the same time, wage growth remains stubbornly elevated in the UK, complicating disinflation (chart 5), while concerns are mounting over the country’s external vulnerabilities as net FDI and portfolio positions weaken against the backdrop of jittery debt markets (chart 6). Together, these dynamics highlight the tension between buoyant market performance and a global economy still grappling with structural fragilities.

Charts of the Week: Riskbusters

250828N8.jpg

250828C8.jpg

Real GDP grew 3.3% (SAAR) during the second quarter of 2025, revised from a 3.0% gain reported initially. The increase followed an unrevised 0.5% decline in Q1. A 3.1% rise had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Growth during the last four quarters of 2.1% compared to 2.0% y/y in Q1, and remained below its most recent high of 3.2% in Q4 2023.

After-tax corporate profits without IVA & CCA adjustment increased 1.4% (7.0% y/y) last quarter after easing 0.8% in Q1. Before-tax earnings with IVA & CCA rose 1.7% (4.3% y/y) after falling 2.3% in Q1. Financial sector earnings rose 1.4% (15.3% y/y) after rising 2.3% in Q1. Nonfinancial corporate profits rose 2.2% (2.5% y/y) after falling 2.5% in Q1. Earnings from abroad eased 0.7% (-0.4% y/y) following a 7.3% Q1 decline.

Foreign trade balance improvement added 4.95 percentage points to growth last quarter after subtracting 4.61 percentage points in Q1. Imports fell 29.8% (+1.3% y/y) after surging 38.0% in Q1. Exports declined 1.3% (+2.0% y/y) after improving 0.4% in Q1. Inventories subtracted 3.29 percentage points from growth after adding 2.59 percentage point to Q1 growth.

Real final sales to domestic purchasers grew 1.6% (2.4% y/y), revised from 1.1%, in Q2 after rising 1.5% in Q1. Personal consumption expenditures rose 1.6% (2.4% y/y), revised from 1.4%, following a 0.5% gain. Durable goods spending rose 2.6% (4.6% y/y) after falling 3.7% in Q1. Motor vehicle purchases strengthened 11.7% (6.7% y/y) after declining 11.2% in Q1. Spending on home furnishings & appliances weakened 2.1% (+3.5% y/y) following a 1.5% rise. Recreational goods & vehicle outlays fell 3.5% (+4.3% y/y) last quarter after a 0.4% Q1 gain.

Nondurable goods outlays in constant dollars rose 2.3% (3.0% y/y) following 2.1% growth in Q1. Apparel spending increased 5.4% (4.8% y/y) following a 7.0% rise. Food & beverage buying gained 0.3% (1.5% y/y) after a 1.0% increase. Gasoline & fuel oil purchases weakened 1.4% (+0.9% y/y) after gaining 3.6% in Q1.

Real spending on services increased 1.2% (1.9% y/y) after a 0.6% gain. Outlays on housing & utilities eased 0.4% (+1.1% y/y) after rising 2.9% in Q1. Health care expenditures rose 4.2% (4.8% y/y) after a 3.1% increase. Transportation outlays declined 2.9% (-0.6% y/y) after a 1.4% rise, while recreation spending rose 3.6% (0.7% y/y) following a 5.1% decline. Restaurant & hotel expenditures increased 5.1% (1.9% y/y) after falling 1.8%. Financial services expenditures rose 1.9% (2.3% y/y) following a 0.1% Q1 increase.

Business fixed investment in constant dollars increased 5.7% last quarter (4.2% y/y), revised from 1.9%, following a 10.3% surge in Q1. Expenditures on structures declined 8.9% (-3.4% y/y), after falling 2.4% in Q1. Expenditures on producers’ durable equipment increased 7.4% (7.7% y/y), revised from 4.8%, after surging 23.7% in Q1. Outlays on information processing equipment rose 10.1% (20.1% y/y), revised from 5.5%, after soaring 72.8% during Q1. Industrial equipment investment rose 6.7% (4.0% y/y) after a 4.7% rise. Transportation equipment investment surged 20.4% (6.8% y/y) after a 6.9% gain. Intellectual property product spending rose 12.8% last quarter (5.2% y/y) following a 6.0% rise.

Residential structures investment in real terms declined a little-revised 4.7% (-1.3% y/y), the fourth decline in the last five quarters.

250828O8.jpg

250828P8.jpg

Government spending eased 0.2%, revised from up 0.5% in Q2 (+1.8% y/y) after a 0.6% decline. Federal government expenditures declined 4.7% (+0.7% y/y) after falling 4.6% in Q1. National defense expenditures increased 1.4% (3.0% y/y) after declining 7.1% in Q1. State & local government spending rose 2.6% (2.5% y/y) following a 2.0% rise.

The GDP chain price index rose an unrevised and expected 2.0% last quarter (2.5% y/y) after increasing 3.8% in Q1. The PCE chain price index increased 2.0% (2.4% y/y) following a 3.7% rise. The PCE price index excluding food and energy rose 2.5% (2.7% y/y) after increasing 3.5% in Q1. The business fixed investment price index edged 0.5% lower (+1.1% y/y) after a 0.4% rise. The residential price index rose 1.1% (2.6% y/y) after a 4.1% rise while the government price index increased 3.3% (3.1% y/y) following a 4.6% rise.

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**.

250828Q8.jpg

250828S8.jpg

- Business investment strengthens & consumer spending firms.
- U.S. business earnings reverse Q1 decline.
- Increase in price index is unrevised, remaining roughly half of Q1’s gain.

U.S. GDP Q2’25 Growth Revised Up; Profits Improve

Sandy Batten

250828J2.jpg

250828K2.jpg

The Kansas City Fed manufacturing composite index was unchanged at 1 in August from July. This was the second consecutive month that the index has been positive, indicating the manufacturing in the KC Fed district continue to inch up in August. Prior to the positive reading in July, the index had been negative for 22 consecutive months. The index’s most recent high was 31 reached in both April 2021 and October 2021. The durable manufacturing sector was mostly flat in August, while nondurable manufacturing activity declined slightly driven by printing activities and paper and chemical manufacturing. 

The August survey was open for a six-day period from August 20-25, 2025 and included 103 responses from plants in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming, northern New Mexico, and western Missouri.

The ISM-adjusted index calculated by Haver Analytics rose to 51.1 (NSA) in August from 50.2 in July. This was the fifth reading above the critical 50 level that separates expansion from contraction in the past six months, a further indication of expanding manufacturing activity.

For the major component indexes, the production index was 0 in August, but this was up from -3 in July. The new orders index rose to 5 in August, its highest reading since May 2022, from 2 in July. The shipments index increased to 6 in August from 3 in July. The employment index was 0 in August, but this was up from -11 in July. Also, the average workweek index rebounded to 3 in August after having been in negative territory for the previous four months. Supplier delivery times were unchanged at 7 in August. The elevation of this index since April may indicate some incipient supply-chain disruptions from higher tariffs. In contrast, raw materials inventories fell to -7 in August from 8 in July.

On the inflation front, the prices paid for raw materials index remained elevated but fell to 43 in August from 47 in July and a local high of 51 in June. Forty-four percent of respondents reported an increase in raw materials prices in August, down from 48% in July and 53% in June, while only 4% reported a decrease, down from 5% in July and 6% in June. The prices received for finished products index increased to 21 in August from 18 in July. This index has fluctuated in a range between 17 and 21 for the past four months.

Expectations for future activity remained positive, with the composite index rising to 11 from 8, as firms anticipate an improvement in production and new orders. While expectations have been trending up over the past several months, they remain depressed relative to the recent high reading of 17 last December. Capital expenditures expectations remained in negative territory in August for the second consecutive month but edged up to -3 from -4 in July.

The series dates back to July 2001. The diffusion indexes are calculated as the percentage of total respondents reporting increases minus the percentage reporting declines. The composite index is an average of the production, new orders, employment, supplier delivery time, and raw materials inventory indexes. Data for the Kansas City Fed Survey can be found in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database.

250828L2.jpg

250828M2.jpg

- Index remained (though barely) in positive territory for the second consecutive month, indicating that manufacturing activity was inching up.
- Prior to last month, the index had been negative for 22 consecutive months.
- Positive readings across most key components.

FRB Kansas City Manufacturing Index Unchanged in August

250828F0.jpg

250828G0.jpg

The Pending Home Sales Index weakened 0.4% in July (+0.7% y/y) to 71.7 after falling an unrevised 0.8% in June and rising an unrevised 1.8% in May, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). The Index remained 42.7% below its most recent peak of 125.1 in October 2021. The index is a forward-looking measure of home sales based on contract signings.

The fall in pending home sales occurred as the average rate on a 30-year mortgage rose to 6.72% in July after holding steady m/m at 6.82% in June. These rates remained well above a low of 5.22% in August 2022 and more than double a record-low 2.68% in December 2020.

Pending home sales were mixed last month in the four major regions of the country. Sales in the Midwest declined 4.0% (+1.3% y/y) in July after easing 0.8% in June. Sales in the Northeast fell 0.6% both m/m and y/y, after holding steady in June. In the South, sales eased 0.1% (+1.8% y/y) following a 0.6% June decline, but sales in the West increased 3.7% (-1.9% y/y), reversing a 3.9% June drop.

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.

- Decline adds to June weakness.
- Regional changes are mixed.


U.S. Pending Home Sales Decline in July

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

250828A5.jpg

250828B5.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance declined to 229,000 during the week of August 23, after rising to 234,000 in the week of August 16, revised from 235,000. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected 230,000 initial claims for last week. The four-week moving average of initial claims increased to 228,500 from 226,000, revised from 226,250. It was the highest level since the second week of July.

In the week ended August 16, the total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries – also known as “continuing claims” – decreased by 7,000 to 1.954 million from 1.961 million in the prior week, revised down by 11,000 from 1.972 million. The four-week moving average rose to 1.956 million in the week ending August 16, the highest level in six weeks, and up from 1.952 million in the prior week, revised from 1.955 million.

In the week ending August 16, the insured rate of unemployment (the number of beneficiaries as a percent of covered employment) was 1.3% for the twelfth consecutive week.

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ended August 9, the highest unemployment rates were in New Jersey (2.75%), Rhode Island (2.58%), Massachusetts (2.18%), Minnesota (2.17%), California (2.11%), Washington (2.08%), District of Columbia (2.04%), and Puerto Rico (2.02%). The lowest were in South Dakota (0.28%), Florida (0.42%), and Alabama and North Carolina (both 0.47%). Rates in other notable states include Pennsylvania (1.92%), New York (1.73%), Illinois (1.72%), and Texas (1.24%). 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. The expectations figure is from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250828C5.jpg

250828D5.jpg

- Initial claims declined in latest week after a surge in the prior week.
- Continuing claims declined.
- Insured unemployment rate holds steady.

Economy in Brief: March 2010

Jump to: