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>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050316b.jpg" width="353">
The US current account deficit deepened in 4Q04 to a record $187.9B. Consensus expectations had been for a deficit of $183.0B. The figure pulled the full year deficit to $665.9B, 5.7% of GDP. 
The deficit in merchandise trade deteriorated to $183.5B from a revised $167.0B in 3Q. Import growth of 5.4% (20.2% y/y) easily surpassed the strength of exports which grew 1.7% (11.6% y/y).
The surplus on services improved slightly to $12.5B from $11.2B in 3Q. The annual surplus of $48.4B in services trade was, however, barely half the peak in 1997 of $89.9B. Exports of services grew 2.6% in 4Q (7.2% y/y and imports rose 1.2% (10.9% y/y).<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050316a.jpg" width="353">
From the capital account, US foreign direct investment abroad surged to $101.3B, nearly double the 4Q03 level, and foreign direct investment in the US rose 1.3% to $36.3B, more than triple the 4Q03 level. The deficit of $65B pulled the full year deficit to $133B, about the same as during 2003.
Federal Reserve Board Governor Ben S. Bernanke&#39;s speech titled The Global Saving Glut and the U.S. Current Account Deficit can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/200503102/default.htm"> 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/@EE/@EE01/@EE01.HTM">US Int&#39;l Balance of Payments</a></th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">3Q &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Current Account Deficit</td>
<td>$187.9B</td>
<td>$165.9B</td>
<td>$127.0B</td>
<td>$665.9B</td>
<td>$530.7B</td>
<td>$473.9B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods/Services/Income Deficit</td>
<td>$168.9B</td>
<td>$151.0B</td>
<td>$109.3B</td>
<td>$593.0B</td>
<td>$463.2B</td>
<td>$414.6B</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Exports</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>13.6%</td>
<td>15.3%</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>-3.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Imports</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>23.3%</td>
<td>18.6%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Unilateral Transfers Deficit</td>
<td>$19.0B</td>
<td>$14.9B</td>
<td>$17.6B</td>
<td>$72.9B</td>
<td>$67.4B</td>
<td>$59.4B</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The US current account deficit deepened in 4Q04 to a record $187.9B. Consensus expectations had been for a deficit of $183.0B. The figure pulled the full year deficit to $665.9B, 5.7% of GDP. The deficit in merchandise trade [...]

U.S. Current Account Deficit Another Record

<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/050316b.jpg" width="353">
The US current account deficit deepened in 4Q04 to a record $187.9B. Consensus expectations had been for a deficit of $183.0B. The figure pulled the full year deficit to $665.9B, 5.7% of GDP. 
The deficit in merchandise trade deteriorated to $183.5B from a revised $167.0B in 3Q. Import growth of 5.4% (20.2% y/y) easily surpassed the strength of exports which grew 1.7% (11.6% y/y).
The surplus on services improved slightly to $12.5B from $11.2B in 3Q. The annual surplus of $48.4B in services trade was, however, barely half the peak in 1997 of $89.9B. Exports of services grew 2.6% in 4Q (7.2% y/y and imports rose 1.2% (10.9% y/y).<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050316a.jpg" width="353">
From the capital account, US foreign direct investment abroad surged to $101.3B, nearly double the 4Q03 level, and foreign direct investment in the US rose 1.3% to $36.3B, more than triple the 4Q03 level. The deficit of $65B pulled the full year deficit to $133B, about the same as during 2003.
Federal Reserve Board Governor Ben S. Bernanke&#39;s speech titled The Global Saving Glut and the U.S. Current Account Deficit can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/200503102/default.htm"> 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/@EE/@EE01/@EE01.HTM">US Int&#39;l Balance of Payments</a></th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">3Q &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Current Account Deficit</td>
<td>$187.9B</td>
<td>$165.9B</td>
<td>$127.0B</td>
<td>$665.9B</td>
<td>$530.7B</td>
<td>$473.9B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods/Services/Income Deficit</td>
<td>$168.9B</td>
<td>$151.0B</td>
<td>$109.3B</td>
<td>$593.0B</td>
<td>$463.2B</td>
<td>$414.6B</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Exports</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>13.6%</td>
<td>15.3%</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>-3.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Imports</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>23.3%</td>
<td>18.6%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Unilateral Transfers Deficit</td>
<td>$19.0B</td>
<td>$14.9B</td>
<td>$17.6B</td>
<td>$72.9B</td>
<td>$67.4B</td>
<td>$59.4B</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Industrial Production Increase Due To Autos & High Tech 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 16, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050316c.jpg" width="353">
Industrial production rose 0.3% in February following an upwardly revised 0.1% up tick in January. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% increase. For the second month utility output fell, by 1.0% after the 2.8% decline in January.
Factory sector output rose 0.5% (4.7% y/y) for the third straight month. High tech sector output rose 1.5% (20.6% y/y) after a 3.2% January increase which was double the initial estimate. Output of communications equipment rose 2.4% (18.6% y/y). Factory output excluding high tech rose 0.5% (3.7% y/y), the strongest monthly gain since October.
Motor vehicle &amp; parts output led the strength last month outside of tech and rose 5.2% (4.5% y/y). Excluding motor vehicles factory output rose just 0.1% (4.7% y/y).
Excluding both high tech and motor vehicles factory output was unchanged last month (3.7% y/y). Output in most industry groups declined. Clothing output fell 1.5% (-7.5% y/y) and paper output slipped 0.2% (+3.5% y/y). Machinery output fell 0.6% (+6.2% y/y) after a strong gain in January but production of appliances, furniture &amp; carpeting rose 0.4% (0.1% y/y).
Total capacity utilization fell slightly to 79.0%. Capacity grew 1.2% y/y.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<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/@EA/@EA.HTM">Production &amp; Capacity</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Industrial Production</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capacity Utilization</td>
<td>79.4%</td>
<td>79.2%</td>
<td>77.7% (02/04)</td>
<td>78.1%</td>
<td>75.5%</td>
<td>75.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Housing Starts Higher in February 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 16, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050316d.jpg" width="353">
Housing starts unexpectedly ticked 0.5% higher in February to a record high of 2.195M following an upwardly revised 6.2% increase in January.Consensus expectations had been for a decline to 2.033M starts.
Single-family starts rose 0.3% m/m to a record high of 1.775M and reflected a 4.5% (19.0% y/y) gain in the Northeast. Single family starts in the Midwest also jumped 19.1% (7.3% y/y).
Multi family starts remained on the mend and rose 1.7% m/m after the upwardly revised 20.8% January spike.
Building permits slipped 2.7% reflecting a 10.8% (+13.8% y/y) drop in permits for 5+ units.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<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/@E901/@E90101/@E90101.HTM">Housing Starts (000s, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>2,195</td>
<td>2,183</td>
<td>15.8%</td>
<td>1,952</td>
<td>1,853</td>
<td>1,7 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Single-family</td>
<td>1,775</td>
<td>1,770</td>
<td>16.7%</td>
<td>1,605</td>
<td>1,505</td>
<td>1,363</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Multi-family</td>
<td>420</td>
<td>413</td>
<td>12.3%</td>
<td>347</td>
<td>348</td>
<td>347</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Building Permits</td>
<td>2,074</td>
<td>2,132</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>2,035</td>
<td>1,8 89</td>
<td>1,749</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
NAHB Housing Market Index Stable 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 16, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050316e.jpg" width="353">
The National Association of Home Builders&#39; (NAHB) Composite Housing Market Index held at 69 in March versus an upwardly revised level in February.
Each of the index components held about at the February levels including the indexes of current and prospective sales which both were up solidly versus last last year.
During the last twenty years, annual changes in the composite index had an 83% correlation with the change in new home sales. There&#39;s been an 86% correlation with the change in single family housing starts.
The NAHB index is a diffusion index based on a survey of builders. Readings above 50 signal that more builders view conditions as good than poor.
Visit the National Association of Home Builders using this <a href="http://www.nahb.org">link</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/@S4/@S4.HTM">Nat&#39;l Association of Home Builders</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Mar &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Housing Market Index</td>
<td>69</td>
<td>69</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>61</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
UK Unemployment Rate Holds to 30-Year Low 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> March 16, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050316f.jpg" width="353">
UK labor market data published today show further evidence of strength in the UK economy. The unemployment rate remained steady at 4.7% for the 3 months surrounding December (i.e., November, December and January), the lowest since the third quarter of 1975, nearly 30 years ago. The related &quot;claimant count&quot; was 813,300 in February, the lowest since June 1975.
Employment rose. The labor force measure, the number of people saying they have jobs, rose 46,000 to 28.57 million, a new high. This too is a 3-month centered moving average for December, compared to the November figure. The count of jobs in Q4 rose 126,000 to 30.53 million, reversing a dip in Q3.
Analysts today said they believe that the firm employment figures are not likely to prompt immediate monetary tightening by the Bank of England, since wage rates remained moderate. The average earnings index (AEI) for January (a 3-month moving average ending in January) was up 4.4% on a year ago, the same as the December figure. Despite some forecasts for a reduction to 4.2%, analysts based their expectation of steady monetary policy on a threshold of 4.5% that the Bank is said to use for consideration of interest rate increases.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050316g.jpg" width="353">
These wage rates and employment are linked, as seen in the second graph. Correlation over the last 10 years of the AEI with the year-on-year growth in workforce jobs has been positive and a notable 69% for the employment data with a two-quarter lead. Thus, as employment growth picks up, wages might be expected to accelerate some six months later; similarly, if employment growth slows, wage gains should diminish over time as well. This positive relationship with employment appearing to move ahead of wages suggests that the UK labor market is demand driven. A supply-oriented market would have wage movements leading employment.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<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/UK/UK.HTM">United Kingdom:</a> All seasonally adjusted</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>4.7*</td>
<td>4.7*</td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>5.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Claimant Count (thous.)</td>
<td>813</td>
<td>814</td>
<td>824</td>
<td>832</td>
<td>854</td>
<td>933</td>
<td>947</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Employment (mil.)</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>28.57*</td>
<td>28.52*</td>
<td>28.44</td>
<td>28.18</td>
<td>27.91</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Change</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>+46K</td>
<td>+30K</td>
<td>+0.9%</td>
<td>+0.9%</td>
<td>+0.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Workforce Jobs</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>30.53 (Q4)</td>
<td>30.45</td>
<td>30.25</td>
<td>29.91</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Change</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>+126K vs. Q3</td>
<td>+0.7</td>
<td>+1.1</td>
<td>+0.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Average Earnings Index &quot;Headline Rate&quot;**</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>4.2</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Louise Curley

<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/050315i.jpg" width="353">
The ZEW Center for European Economic Research in Mannheim, Germany, reported that German analysts and institutional investors became slightly more optimistic regarding Germany&#39;s economic prospects over the next six months. The proportion of optimists over pessimists rose to 36.3% in March from 35.9% in February. Although this figure is well below the 73.4% reached in December 2003, it is 22.4 percentage points above the recent low of 13.9% recorded in November of last year.
Haver has recently added ZEW data regarding appraisals of current condition and expectations of conditions six months ahead for the Euro zone. For the six month outlook for the Euro Zone as a whole, the proportion of optimists over pessimists rose to 37.3% in March from 36.0% in February. This figures is 42.8 percentage points below the recent peak of 80.1 in January, 2004 and 19.6 points above the low of 17.7 in December 2004. The attached chart compares the expectations for Germany with those for the Euro Zone as a whole. As Germany is such a large component of the Euro Zone, the two series tend to move together.
In addition to appraisals of current conditions and expectations of conditions six months ahead for the entire Euro Zone, Haver has added appraisals of the profit outlook six months ahead for thirteen industries: banking, insurance, vehicles/automotive, chemical/pharmaceutical, steel/metal, electronics, machinery, consumption/ trade, construction, utilities, services, telecommunications and information technology. The March data show that, except for the consumption/trade and construction industries, optimists exceeded pessimists in appraising the profit outlook of all the other industries. The excess of optimists over pessimists varied from 28.8% for the electronics industry to 59.% for information technology.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/GERMANY/GERMANY.HTM">Germany: ZEW index</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar 05</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 05</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 04</th>
<th scope="col">M/M dif</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y dif</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;2004&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;2003</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp; 2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Macroeconomic conditions 6 months ahead&nbsp;</td>
<td>&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">Germany</td>
<td>36.3</td>
<td>35.9</td>
<td>57.6</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>-21.3</td>
<td>44.6</td>
<td>38.4</td>
<td>45.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Euro Zone</td>
<td>37.3</td>
<td>36.0</td>
<td>64.3</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>-27.0</td>
<td>52.1</td>
<td>48.9</td>
<td>53.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Profit expectations</td>
<td>&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 class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Banking</td>
<td>55.5</td>
<td>54.9</td>
<td>71.2</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>-15.7</td>
<td>59.6</td>
<td>30.5</td>
<td>-8.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Insurance</td>
<td>43.1</td>
<td>41.2</td>
<td>62.2</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>-19.1</td>
<td>56.5</td>
<td>27.8</td>
<td>6.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Vehicle/automotive</td>
<td>-2.9</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>-6.7</td>
<td>-6.1</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-8.2</td>
<td>-6.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Chem./pharmaceutical</td>
<td>50.5</td>
<td>47.5</td>
<td>37.8</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>12.7</td>
<td>37.5</td>
<td>25.8</td>
<td>25.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Steel/metal</td>
<td>45.0</td>
<td>47.1</td>
<td>41.6</td>
<td>-2.1</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>48.7</td>
<td>13.1</td>
<td>4.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Electronics</td>
<td>28.8</td>
<td>27.2</td>
<td>49.9</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>-21.1</td>
<td>46.6</td>
<td>19.9</td>
<td>11.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Machinery</td>
<td>45.6</td>
<td>46.0</td>
<td>46.6</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>53.4</td>
<td>7.0</td>
<td>5.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumption/trade</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>9.0</td>
<td>7.9</td>
<td>-9.4</td>
<td>-8.3</td>
<td>-0.8</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>-8.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Construction</td>
<td>-22.6</td>
<td>-24.6</td>
<td>-4.7</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>-17.9</td>
<td>-18.2</td>
<td>-33.7</td>
<td>-28.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Utilities</td>
<td>42.6</td>
<td>49.7</td>
<td>45.9</td>
<td>-7.1</td>
<td>-3.3</td>
<td>46.9</td>
<td>19.1</td>
<td>18.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Services</td>
<td>52.2</td>
<td>55.2</td>
<td>62.4</td>
<td>-3.0</td>
<td>-10.2</td>
<td>58.0</td>
<td>35.2</td>
<td>25.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Telecommunications</td>
<td>56.5</td>
<td>58.0</td>
<td>71.7</td>
<td>-1.5</td>
<td>-15.2</td>
<td>62.5</td>
<td>49.7</td>
<td>9.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Information technology</td>
<td>59.4</td>
<td>52.4</td>
<td>68.4</td>
<td>7.0</td>
<td>-9.0</td>
<td>63.0</td>
<td>45.2</td>
<td>17.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The ZEW Center for European Economic Research in Mannheim, Germany, reported that German analysts and institutional investors became slightly more optimistic regarding Germany's economic prospects over the next six months. The [...]

German Analysts and Institutional Investors More Positive Regarding Overall Economy but Profit Expectations Are Mixed

<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/050315h.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales last week recovered all of the prior week&#39;s decline with a 0.6% increase according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey.
Sales so far in March are 1.1% ahead of the February average which rose 1.0% from January.
During the last ten years there has been a 59% correlation between y/y change in chain store sales and the change in non-auto retail sales less gasoline, as published by the US Census Department.
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC inched up 0.3% in the latest week (0.2% y/y). The indicator&#39;s February average rose 0.4% following a 0.6% January decline.
The ICSC-UBS retail chain-store sales index is constructed using the same-store sales (stores open for one year) reported by 78 stores of seven retailers: Dayton Hudson, Federated, Kmart, May, J.C. Penney, Sears and Wal-Mart.

<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/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">03/12/05</th>
<th scope="col">03/05/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>453.6</td>
<td>450.8</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Chain store sales last week recovered all of the prior week's decline with a 0.6% increase according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey. Sales so far in March are 1.1% ahead of the February average [...]

Chain Store Sales Recovered

<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/050315f.jpg" width="353">
The Empire State Index of General Business Conditions in New York&#39;s manufacturing industries inched higher in March to 19.61 but remained well below its level a year ago.
The new orders component improved sharply to the highest level since last September and the employment measure rose as well to its highest since September. Like the Philadelphia Fed Index of General Business Conditions, the Empire State Business Conditions Index reflects answers to an independent survey question; it is not a weighted combination of the components.
The prices paid index rose and reversed all of the moderate decline in February.
Expectations for business conditions in six months rose to the highest level this year. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050315g.jpg" width="353">
The Empire State Manufacturing Survey is a monthly survey of manufacturers in New York State conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Participants from across the state in a variety of industries respond to a questionnaire and report the change in a variety of indicators from the previous month. Respondents also state the likely direction of these same indicators six months ahead. April 2002 is the first report, although survey data date back to July 2001.
For more on the Empire State Manufacturing Survey, including methodologies and the latest report, click <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/regional_economy/empiresurvey_overview.html">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<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/@S5/@S511/@S511.HTM">Empire State Manufacturing Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Mar &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">General Business Conditions (diffusion index)</td>
<td>19.61</td>
<td>19.19</td>
<td>28.15</td>
<td>28.76</td>
<td>16.17</td>
<td>7.19</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Empire State Index of General Business Conditions in New York's manufacturing industries inched higher in March to 19.61 but remained well below its level a year ago. The new orders component improved sharply to the highest level [...]

Empire State Index Eased Higher Again

<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/050315e.jpg" width="353">
Total business inventories jumped 0.9% in January following an unrevised 0.2% December rise. The pace of inventory accumulation has accelerated markedly since 2002 but has not kept pace with the improvement in sales growth. Consequently the ratio of inventories-to-sales fell through last year and in January remained at the record low.
Inventory accumulation was strongest in January at the factory level where a 1.3% gain was the largest monthly increase since 1988.
Wholesale inventories jumped 1.1%. During the last ten years there has been a 64% correlation between the y/y change in wholesale inventories and the change in imports of merchandise.
Retail inventories rose 0.4% in January following a 0.3% December increase. Accumulation of non-auto retail inventories, however, again was quite strong up 0.8% led by a 19.8% y/y gain in building materials and a 7.8% y/y rise in furniture &amp; electronics.
Overall business sales jumped 0.8% (+11.1% y/y).

<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/@ED06/@ED0601/@ED0601.HTM">Business Inventories</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>8.6%</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Retail</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>6.4%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Retail excl. Autos</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>12.3%</td>
<td>11.2%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>8.5%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Total business inventories jumped 0.9% in January following an unrevised 0.2% December rise. The pace of inventory accumulation has accelerated markedly since 2002 but has not kept pace with the improvement in sales growth. [...]

U.S. Inventories Up

<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/050315d.jpg" width="353">
The Job Openings &amp; Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated the job openings rate eased in January to 2.4% versus 2.6% in December. The job openings rate is the number of job openings on the last business day of the month as a percent of total employment plus job openings.
The hires rate held in January at December&#39;s upwardly revised 3.5%. The hires rate is the number of hires during the month divided by employment.
The total number of job openings fell 5.8% (+15.4% y/y) after a 7.0% gain in December.
Job separations fell 1.7% m/m (+9.2% y/y). The separation rate held steady at 3.3%. Total separations include quits, layoffs, discharges, and other separations as well as retirements. The total separations, or turnover, rate is the total number of separations during the month divided by employment.
The survey dates only to December 2000 but has since followed the movement in nonfarm payrolls.
From the U.S. Department of Labor, a description of the Jolts survey and the latest release is available <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm">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/@EB14/@EB14.HTM">JOLTS</a> (Job Openings &amp; Labor Turnover Survey)</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;Jan &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Job Openings Rate: Total</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Hires Rate: Total</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Job Openings & Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated the job openings rate eased in January to 2.4% versus 2.6% in December. The job openings rate is the number of job openings on the last [...]

JOLTS: Job Openings Eased in the US

<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/050315b.jpg" width="353">
The Manpower Employment Outlook Survey indicated further growth in U.S. jobs. The 2Q05 index of hiring intentions held at 21 and was nearly double the index&#39;s level two years ago. The index indicates that a net 21% of 16,000 employers expect to increase hiring activity.
Since 1980 there has been a 74% correlation between the Manpower index and the y/y change in non-farm payrolls.
Not seasonally adjusted, 30% of employers planned to raise employment in 2Q04, the highest since late 2000, while only 7% planned to decrease employment.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050315c.jpg" width="353">
Improvement in hiring intentions versus last year was widespread across industries but notable in finance/insurance/real estate, education and public administration. Moderate improvement continued in manufacturing industries but the gains contrast with net job loss three years ago.
The latest press release from Manpower Inc. covering global employment prospects can be viewed <a href="http://www.manpower.com/mpcom/viewMeos?name=US_2q05PressRelease.doc"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<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/@SC/@SC.HTM">Manpower Employment Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">2Q &#39;05</th>
<th scope="col">1Q &#39;05</th>
<th scope="col">2Q &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">All Industries - Net Higher (SA)</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Manpower Employment Outlook Survey indicated further growth in U.S. jobs. The 2Q05 index of hiring intentions held at 21 and was nearly double the index's level two years ago. The index indicates that a net 21% of 16,000 employers [...]

Manpower Index Suggests More US Jobs

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

Negative US inflation surprises leading G10 down

Deflation continues in China

Incoming data surprising on downside in US; positive surprises elsewhere

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

Winnie Tapasanun

251229A23.jpg

251229B23.jpg

General business activity in Texas declined further in December, according to the Texas Manufacturing Outlook Survey conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. The overall measure, the general business activity index, fell to -10.9 in December, the lowest level since June, from -10.4 in November and -5.0 in October. The index, while above a low of -35.8 in April, was well below a high of +14.1 in January and +4.5 in December 2024. The index had been in negative territory from February through December 2025, except for a one-month positive reading of +0.9 in July. In December, 12.7% of respondents reported improved business activity, down from 18.9% in November, while 23.6% of respondents reported worsened business conditions, down from November's 29.3%. The company outlook index dropped to -11.9 in December, the fourth consecutive negative reading and the lowest since April, from -6.3 in November. Just 10.8% of respondents expected improved company outlook this month while 22.7% expected deterioration. Data were collected between December 15 and 23 from 74 Texas manufacturers.

The production index, a key measure of state manufacturing conditions, plunged to -3.2 in December after a 15.3-point jump to 20.5 in November, indicating production contracted for the first time since February. A lessened 17.2% of respondents reported higher production this month while an increased 20.4% reported a decline. The capacity utilization index plummeted to -4.5 in December, the lowest reading since February, following a four-year-high 19.4 in November; it was up from a low of -15.0 in January 2024 but well below a record-high 46.3 in March 2021.

The growth rate of orders index declined steeply to -16.0 in December from -1.3 in November, marking the weakest of four successive negative readings and the lowest level since June. The index was above a low of -22.0 in April and a low of -24.3 in November 2023 but significantly below a peak of 29.6 in April 2021. The new orders index fell to -6.4 this month after rising to 4.8 in November, indicating a decline in demand for the third time in four months and the lowest level since June. The index was above a low of -20.0 in April and a low of -21.8 in November 2022 but well below a high of 22.6 in February 2022 and a record-high 38.6 in April 2021. The shipments index plunged to -10.6 this month after jumping to 15.1 in November, marking its first negative reading since June and the lowest since July 2024. The unfilled orders index dropped to -13.5 in December from -6.6 in November, registering the 16th straight negative reading and the lowest since November 2024. The index was below a high of 1.4 in August 2024 but above a low of -26.3 in July 2024. Meanwhile, the delivery time index increased to 3.3 this month, the highest reading since March, from -8.4 in November.

Labor market indexes showed flat employment conditions and shorter workweeks in December. The employment index slipped to -1.1 this month from 1.2 in November, marking its first negative reading since September, with the near-zero level indicating little change in employment. The latest reading, while up from a low of -9.7 in January 2024, was far below a high of 17.9 in January 2023 and a record-high 31.8 in April 2021. A lessened 12.3% of respondents reported net hiring in December while 13.4% reported net layoffs. The hours worked index fell sharply to -7.5 this month, the lowest reading since June, after rising to 9.9 in November. Meanwhile, the wages & benefits index climbed to 21.8 in December, the highest level since October 2024 and near its series average of 21.0, up from 15.4 in November; nevertheless, having been trending downward since a peak of 55.0 in March 2022.

Inflationary pressures were little changed this month. The index for prices received for finished goods declined to 8.2 in December following a 3.1-point rise to 10.8 in November; it was up from a low of -7.0 in November 2023 but meaningfully below a high of 47.4 in March 2022 and a peak of 51.4 in October 2021. In December, 13.1% of respondents reported raising prices while only 4.9% reported lowering prices. The index of prices paid for raw materials rose to 36.0 this month, the highest reading since September, after a 1.9-point increase to 35.3 in November. The index was well above a low of 1.0 in June 2023 but significantly below 73.2 in March 2022 and a record-high 83.8 in November 2021.

Expectations on future manufacturing activity remained positive this month. The future general business activity index dipped to 10.8 in December after rising to 11.0 in November, registering the eighth straight positive reading. The future production index rose to a four-month-high 34.2 from November’s 33.7. Other indexes of future manufacturing activity also rose in December (vs. November), signaling increased activity six months ahead: company outlook (16.5 vs. 16.2), shipments (33.9 vs. 27.0), wages & benefits (42.5 vs. 39.1), and capital expenditures (17.7 vs. 12.9). Meanwhile, future indexes for capacity utilization (28.9 vs. 34.0), new orders (30.5 vs. 39.2), growth rate of new orders (24.9 vs. 27.8), and employment (20.9 vs. 22.3) declined in December (vs. November), but they remained in positive territory.

Each index is calculated by subtracting the percentage reporting a decrease in activity from the percentage reporting an increase. When all firms report rising activity, an index will register 100. An index will register -100 when all firms report a decrease. An index will be zero when the number of firms reporting an increase equals the number reporting a decrease. Data for the Texas Manufacturing Outlook, conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, can be found in Haver's **SURVEYS** database.

251229C23.jpg

251229D23.jpg

- General Business Activity down in Dec. to -10.9, lowest level since June.
- Company Outlook (-11.9) negative for the fourth straight mth. and at an eight-month low; Production (-3.2) negative for the first time since Feb.
- New Orders Growth (-16.0) and New Orders (-6.4) at a six-month low.
- Employment (-1.1) negative for the first time since Sept.
- Prices Received down 2.6 pts. to 8.2; Prices Paid up 0.7 pts. to a three-month-high 36.0.
- Future General Business Activity down to 10.8, still positive for the eighth consecutive mth.

Texas General Business Activity Still Negative in December, But Expectations Remain Positive

251229F.jpg

251229G.jpg

The Pending Home Sales Index, a forward-looking measure of home sales based on contract signings, rose 3.3% m/m to 79.2 in November after increases of 2.4% in October (+1.9% initially) and 0.1% in September (unrevised), according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). The November reading registered the fourth consecutive m/m gain after declining in July and June. The year-on-year growth rate accelerated to 2.6% in November, the highest since August, from 0.1% in October, though still below +6.0% y/y in November 2024. Despite recent gains, the PHSI had fallen 36.7% since its October 2021 high of 125.1.

The m/m rise in November pending home sales coincided with a decline in the average 30-year mortgage rate to 6.24% in November, the lowest since September 2024, down from 6.25% in October and 6.35% in September. 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 rose m/m in November across all four major regions. Sales in the West recovered 9.2% (2.4% y/y) in November, the first m/m increase since August, following a 1.4% decline in October. Sales in the South rose 2.4% (3.3% y/y), the fourth straight m/m rise, on top of a 2.7% October advance. Sales in the Northeast grew 1.8% (1.8% y/y), the third successive m/m increase, after a 2.3% October gain. Sales in the Midwest rose 1.3% (2.2% y/y), up for the third time in four months, after a 5.3% November rebound.

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 +3.3% (+2.6% y/y) in Nov., driven by lower mortgage rates.
- Home sales m/m up in all four major regions, w/ the highest rate in the West (+9.2%).
- Home sales y/y up across all regions, w/ the highest rate in the South (+3.3%).

U.S. Pending Home Sales Rise for the Fourth Straight Month in November

Robert Brusca

251229E.jpg

Swedish exports advanced month-to-month for the second month in a row while imports continued on a losing streak declining by 0.9% in November.

Exports have gradually been firming with exports falling by 6.1% over 12 months, rising at an annual rate of 4.8% over six months, and then rising at a 3.9% annual rate over three months. Exports are not on a steady acceleration path, but they have transitioned from a year-over-year growth rate that's negative to moderate positive short-term rates of growth.

Swedish imports, on the other hand, are weakening relatively sharply. Imports were down 4.4% over 12 months, down at a 1.2% annual rate over six months, and falling at a 17% annual rate over three months.

The global trade picture remains somewhat mixed. The Baltic Dry goods index, which is an indicator of global trade volume, has backed off of its highs but continues to post relatively steady volume indications. However, the S&P global manufacturing survey has been showing weakness; when manufacturing is weak, typically international trade is weak as well. Swedish trade may be picking up some of that weakness as well.

251229.jpg

On balance, Sweden's trade surplus has continued to recover and hold to a relatively high level over recent months as exports have maintained momentum better than imports.

Swedish domestic barometers of economic growth have remained relatively upbeat including orders and industrial production as well as employment growth and GDP. There is no reason there to expect weak imports based on the recent data we have seen. But then sometimes trade data show economic weakness first.   

At this time, the yearend weakness in Sweden’s imports is without a specific cause. Year-end flows can be surprising. Domestic demand, however, does not appear to be weak. But there is a good deal of weakness in Europe and the Ukraine-Russia war is still a nagging factor – a cloud that hangs over all of Europe with no certain end date or result in sight.

Sweden

Sweden’s Trade; Exports Surge as Imports Recede

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

251224A1.jpg

251224b1.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance dropped 10,000 to 214,000 in the week of December 20, from 224,000 during the week of December 13. The four-week moving average of initial claims was 216,750, a decrease of 750 from the prior week’s unrevised 217,500.

Federal government employees initially filed 805 (NSA) jobless insurance claims in the week ended December 13, after filing 1091 claims in the week ended December 6.

Continuing claims for unemployment insurance rose 38,000 to 1.923 million in the week ending December 13, after rising 55,000 to 1.885 million, revised from 1.897 million in the week ending December 6. The four-week moving average was 1.894 million in the week ending December 13, down 5,250 from 1.899 million, revised from 1,902,000 in the week ending December 6. The insured unemployment rate stood at 1.3% in the week of December 13, up from 1.2% in the week of December 6.

Federal government employees’ continuing benefits claims were 12,887 (NSA) in the week ending December 6, from 14,077 (NSA) in the week of November 29. 

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ending December 6, the highest unemployment rates were in New Jersey and Washington (both 2.40%), Massachusetts and Minnesota (both 2.10%), California and Rhode Island (both 2.00%). The lowest rates were in Florida (0.30%), and Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina (all 0.40%). Rates in other notable states include New York (1.80%), Illinois and Pennsylvania (both 1.70%), and Texas (1.10%). 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.


251224c1.jpg

251224e1.jpg

- Initial claims declined from the prior week.
- Continuing claims rose from the prior week.
- The insured unemployment rate edged up.


U.S. Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance Dropped in Latest Week

251224a0.jpg

251224b0.jpg

Mortgage applications dropped 5.0% w/w (+49.8% y/y) in the week of December 19, after a drop of 3.8% w/w (+40.9% y/y) in the week of December 12, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey. Applications for loans to purchase a house fell 3.7% w/w (+15.9% y/y) in the latest week, the third consecutive weekly decline, following a drop of 2.8% w/w (+12.3% y/y) in the December 12 week. Applications for loan refinancing dropped 5.6% w/w (+110.1% y/y) in the December 19 week after a decline of 3.6% w/w (+86.0% y/y) in the week of December 12. 

The effective interest rate on a 30-year fixed-rate loan fell 8bps to 6.48% in the week ending December 19 from 6.56% in the week ending December 12. The rate on 15-year fixed-rate mortgages dropped 5bps to 5.86% in the latest week from 5.91% in the prior week. The 30-year Jumbo rate rose 8bps to 6.63% in the December 19 week from 6.55% in the December 12 week. The rate on a 5-year ARM jumped 20bps to 5.96% in the latest week from 5.76% in the December 12 week.

The share of applications for refinancing an existing loan edged up to 59.1% of total applications in the December19 week from 59.0% in the week ending December 12. The adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) share of activity rose to 8.1% in the latest week from 7.2% in the December 12 week.

The average size of a mortgage loan edged down 0.1% w/w (+7.8% y/y) to $399,700 in the week ending December 19, following a rise of 1.5% w/w (6.4% y/y) to $400,000 in the December 12 week. The average size of a purchase loan rose 1.0% w/w (1.1% y/y) to $428,600 in the latest week, after rising 0.6% w/w (-0.3% y/y) to $424,200 in the prior week. The average size of a loan to refinance a mortgage declined 0.9% w/w (+24.9% y/y) to $379,700 in the December 19 week, following a rise of 2.3% w/w (19.8% y/y) to $383,300 in the week ending December 12.

The Mortgage Bankers Association Survey covers 75% of all U.S. retail residential mortgage applications and has been conducted weekly since 1990. Respondents include mortgage bankers, commercial banks and thrifts. The base period and value for all indexes is March 16, 1990=100. The figures for weekly mortgage applications and interest rates are available in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database.


- Both purchase applications and refinancing loan applications fell in the latest week.
- Effective interest rate on 30-year fixed loans fell to 6.48%.
- Average loan size edged down.


Economy in Brief: 2005

Jump to:

U.S. Current Account Deficit Another Record

U.S. Current Account Deficit Another Record

German Analysts and Institutional Investors More Positive Regarding Overall Economy but Profit Expectations Are Mixed

Chain Store Sales Recovered

Empire State Index Eased Higher Again

U.S. Inventories Up

JOLTS: Job Openings Eased in the US

Manpower Index Suggests More US Jobs