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/100202h.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">Data
for
retail sales, excluding motor vehicles and motorcycles, in France and
in Germany were released today.&nbsp; The latest date for France is
November and for Germany, December.</p>
<p>Retail trade in Germany continues
to disappoint.&nbsp; Both the volume and value of trade increased
0.8% in December but they are no higher than they were
October.&nbsp; The volume of trade in December was 97.0 (2005=100)
compared with 97.9 in October.&nbsp; The corresponding figures for
the value of trade were 98.9 and 100.0. With the GfK Consumer Climate
Survey released last week pointing to a continuing deterioration of the
consumer climate in January and February, the outlook for retail sales
is not encouraging. The first chart shows that the declining trends in
both the value and the volume of retail trade, which began in early
2008, are continuing.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The picture in France is more
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100202i.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">encouraging.&nbsp;
Although both volume and value have had their
ups and down, the declines in the volume and value of retail trade have
been less severe than those in Germany and the trends for both appear
to have begun to turn up since May of this year.&nbsp; There was no
change in the value of trade in November--the index remaining at 105.2;
there was a slight decline in the volume of trade to 107.8 from 107.9
in October.&nbsp; The value and volume of retail trade in France
are shown in the second chart.</p>
<p>Since the data are available only in
index form, the absolute volume and value of retail trade are
unknown.&nbsp; All we know is that, in the case of Germany, the
volume of retail trade in December was 3% below its volume in 2005 and
the value, 1.1% below 2005.&nbsp; In France, the volume of retail
trade in November was 7.8% above its 2005 volume and the value, 5.2%
above.&nbsp; The volume and value of retail sales in Germany are
still below levels reached in 2005, while in France the volume and
value of retail sales have surpassed 2005 levels.
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Value
of Retail Trade (2005=100)</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 09</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 08</th>
<th scope="col">Oct 09</th>
<th scope="col">Sep 09</th>
<th scope="col">Aug 09</th>
<th scope="col">Jul 09</th>
<th scope="col">Jun 09</th>
<th scope="col">May 09</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>98.9</td>
<td>98.1</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>99.0</td>
<td>98.8</td>
<td>99.8</td>
<td>99.1</td>
<td>99.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>105.2</td>
<td>105.2</td>
<td>104.6</td>
<td>105.2</td>
<td>104.2</td>
<td>104.9</td>
<td>103.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="9">Volume of Retail
Trade
(2005=100)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>97.0</td>
<td>96.2</td>
<td>97.9</td>
<td>97.0</td>
<td>96.5</td>
<td>98.1</td>
<td>96.8</td>
<td>97.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>107.8</td>
<td>107.9</td>
<td>107.1</td>
<td>107.9</td>
<td>107.1</td>
<td>107.9</td>
<td>106.7</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</p>
</span>
</body></html>

Data for retail sales, excluding motor vehicles and motorcycles, in France and in Germany were released today. The latest date for France is November and for Germany, December. Retail trade in Germany continues to disappoint. Both the [...]

German And French Retail Sales

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 src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100202g.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353"></p>
<p>German retail sales rose by 0.8% in both real and nominal
terms (ex autos) in December. The rise still leaves the 3-month nominal
growth rate for sales in a mild negative path while in real terms
retail sales are flat over three months. In the quarter the annual rate
pace for both real and nominal sales is just below 1%. Car sales that
had boosted consumer activity due to government incentives to buy a new
car and scrap an old one have now left sales week. Auto registration
fell by 15.7% in December after falling by 9.8% in November. Auto
registrations are now off by 4.7% Yr/Yr</p>
<p>The trend for the German consumer is still poor. There is a
very gradual improvement as the negative growth rates are climbing
slowly back toward zero. But at this pace the German consumer is not
posed to take the German economy anywhere.</p>
</span>
German Real and Nominal Retail Sales
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8" scope="col"> <b>German
Real and Nominal Retail Sales</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>QTR</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Nominal</td>
<td>Dec-09</td>
<td>Nov-09</td>
<td>Oct-09</td>
<td>3-MO</td>
<td>6-MO</td>
<td>12-MO</td>
<td>YrAgo</td>
<td>Saar</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retaill Ex auto</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.9%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.8%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">MV and Parts</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.7%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.5%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Food Bev &amp;
Tobacco</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.9%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.9%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-5.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Clothing footwear</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-9.3%</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
<td>8.0%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>10.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">car registrations
(units)</td>
<td style="color: red;">-15.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-9.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-66.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-60.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-4.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-6.7%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol">Real</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Retail
Ex auto</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.7%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.5%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

German retail sales rose by 0.8% in both real and nominal terms (ex autos) in December. The rise still leaves the 3-month nominal growth rate for sales in a mild negative path while in real terms retail sales are flat over three [...]

German Retail Sales In Very Slow-Motion Recovery

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/100202d.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">
After
hitting the high last June the <b>pump price for regular
gasoline </b>has been roughly unchanged. Last week, the price
slipped to $2.66 and compares to $2.69 reached during June.
Nevertheless, prices remained up 41% from last year. Yesterday, the
spot market price for a gallon of regular gasoline was near last week's
level at $1.94 but down from the January high of $2.14. The figures are
reported by the U.S. Department of Energy and can be found in Haver's <b>WEEKLY
&amp; DAILY </b>databases.</p><p> Earlier strength in the price
for a barrel of light sweet crude (WTI) oil eased somewhat. Last week's
price of $74.03 for a barrel of light sweet crude (WTI) was down from
the high of $82.59 reached three weeks earlier. Yesterday, the spot
price of $74.43 was up slightly from last week. Nevertheless, prices
have risen from $71.53 early this past December and are more than
double the December 2008 low of $32.37.· Demand for gasoline last week
posted a 1.0% decline versus one year ago. That decline compared to a
3.9% increase at the beginning of October. Breaking away from earlier
y/y strength, the demand for residual fuel oil fell 19.8% y/y.
Distillate demand fell 9.8% y/y, a decline more moderate than the 21.6%
y/y shortfall at the beginning of last July. Inventories of crude oil
and petroleum products fell in January by 6.1% from the July high and
were up just 0.4% from one year ago.</p><p> As temperatures moderated, U.S.
natural gas prices backed off to an average $5.46 per mmbtu (15.0% y/y)
from the high of $6.50 early in January. Nevertheless they remained up
from $3.35 in November, triple the September low but down by half from
the high reached in early-July of 2008 of $13.19/mmbtu.</p><p> The energy
price data can be found in Haver's <b>WEEKLY </b>database
while the daily figures are in <b>DAILY</b>. The gasoline
demand figures are in <b>OILWKLY</b>.·&nbsp;<b>Real-time
inflation Forecasting in a Changing World</b> from the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York can be found <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr388.pdf">here</a>&nbsp;</p>
 
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100202e.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100202f.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"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W4/@W4.HTM"><b>Weekly
Prices</b></a></th>
<th scope="col"><b>02/01/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>01/25/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>01/18/10</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>
<td class="firstcol">Retail Regular Gasoline ($ per
Gallon, Regular)</td>
<td>2.66</td>
<td>2.71</td>
<td>2.74</td>
<td>40.6%</td>
<td>2.35</td>
<td>3.25</td>
<td>2.80</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Light Sweet Crude Oil,
WTI&nbsp; ($ per bbl.)</td>
<td>74.03</td>
<td>76.76</td>
<td>80.07</td>
<td>74.1%</td>
<td>61.39</td>
<td>100.16</td>
<td>72.25</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</span></body></html>

After hitting the high last June the pump price for regular gasoline has been roughly unchanged. Last week, the price slipped to $2.66 and compares to $2.69 reached during June. Nevertheless, prices remained up 41% from last year. [...]

U.S. Weekly Gasoline Prices Meander

<!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/100202a.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">
Home sales
recovered during December after falling sharply in November with the
(since-extended) expiration of an $8,000 first-time home buyers tax
credit. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that
December pending home sales rose 1.0% from November. Home sales
remained up 20.1% from the January low and the latest increase matched
Consensus expectations.</p><p> Modest monthly gains in home sales were
recorded across the country.&nbsp;</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.<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></p><p><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><b>Recent
Development in Mortgage Finance </b>from the Federal Reserve
Bank of San Francisco can be found <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2009/el2009-33.html">here</a>.</p>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100202b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100202c.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" style="color: white;">Pending Home Sales (2001=100)&nbsp;</a></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>December</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>November</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>October</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>98.6</td>
<td>95.6</td>
<td>114.3</td>
<td>&nbsp;&nbsp;10.9%</td>
<td>95.1</td>
<td>86.8</td>
<td>95.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Northeast</td>
<td>76.1</td>
<td>74.4</td>
<td>100.2</td>
<td>15.0</td>
<td>76.6</td>
<td>73.1</td>
<td>85.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Midwest</td>
<td>86.9</td>
<td>82.6</td>
<td>110.3</td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td>88.7</td>
<td>80.6</td>
<td>89.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; South</td>
<td>98.4</td>
<td>96.3</td>
<td>115.1</td>
<td>14.8</td>
<td>98.2</td>
<td>89.6</td>
<td>107.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; West</td>
<td>119.9</td>
<td>124.6</td>
<td>128.1</td>
<td>18.6</td>
<td>111.5</td>
<td>99.5</td>
<td>92.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</span></body></html>

Home sales recovered during December after falling sharply in November with the (since-extended) expiration of an $8,000 first-time home buyers tax credit. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that December pending home [...]

U.S. Pending Home Sales Improve

<!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/100202a.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">Home
sales
recovered during December after falling sharply in November with the
(since-extended) expiration of an $8,000 first-time home buyers tax
credit. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that
December pending home sales rose 1.0% from November. Home sales
remained up 20.1% from the January low and the latest increase matched
Consensus expectations.</p>
<p> Modest monthly gains in home sales were
recorded across the country.&nbsp;</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.<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><b>Recent
Development in Mortgage Finance </b>from the Federal Reserve
Bank of San Francisco can be found <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2009/el2009-33.html">here</a>.</p>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100202b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100202c.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" style="color: white;">Pending Home Sales (2001=100)&nbsp;</a></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>December</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>November</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>October</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>98.6</td>
<td>95.6</td>
<td>114.3</td>
<td>&nbsp;&nbsp;10.9%</td>
<td>95.1</td>
<td>86.8</td>
<td>95.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Northeast</td>
<td>76.1</td>
<td>74.4</td>
<td>100.2</td>
<td>15.0</td>
<td>76.6</td>
<td>73.1</td>
<td>85.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Midwest</td>
<td>86.9</td>
<td>82.6</td>
<td>110.3</td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td>88.7</td>
<td>80.6</td>
<td>89.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; South</td>
<td>98.4</td>
<td>96.3</td>
<td>115.1</td>
<td>14.8</td>
<td>98.2</td>
<td>89.6</td>
<td>107.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; West</td>
<td>119.9</td>
<td>124.6</td>
<td>128.1</td>
<td>18.6</td>
<td>111.5</td>
<td>99.5</td>
<td>92.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</span>
<span id="articletitle">U.S. Weekly Gasoline Prices Meander</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> February 2, 2010</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100202d.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">After
hitting the high last June the <b>pump price for regular
gasoline </b>has been roughly unchanged. Last week, the price
slipped to $2.66 and compares to $2.69 reached during June.
Nevertheless, prices remained up 41% from last year. Yesterday, the
spot market price for a gallon of regular gasoline was near last week's
level at $1.94 but down from the January high of $2.14. The figures are
reported by the U.S. Department of Energy and can be found in Haver's <b>WEEKLY
&amp; DAILY </b>databases.</p>
<p> Earlier strength in the price
for a barrel of light sweet crude (WTI) oil eased somewhat. Last week's
price of $74.03 for a barrel of light sweet crude (WTI) was down from
the high of $82.59 reached three weeks earlier. Yesterday, the spot
price of $74.43 was up slightly from last week. Nevertheless, prices
have risen from $71.53 early this past December and are more than
double the December 2008 low of $32.37.· Demand for gasoline last week
posted a 1.0% decline versus one year ago. That decline compared to a
3.9% increase at the beginning of October. Breaking away from earlier
y/y strength, the demand for residual fuel oil fell 19.8% y/y.
Distillate demand fell 9.8% y/y, a decline more moderate than the 21.6%
y/y shortfall at the beginning of last July. Inventories of crude oil
and petroleum products fell in January by 6.1% from the July high and
were up just 0.4% from one year ago.</p>
<p> As temperatures moderated, U.S.
natural gas prices backed off to an average $5.46 per mmbtu (15.0% y/y)
from the high of $6.50 early in January. Nevertheless they remained up
from $3.35 in November, triple the September low but down by half from
the high reached in early-July of 2008 of $13.19/mmbtu.</p>
<p> The energy
price data can be found in Haver's <b>WEEKLY </b>database
while the daily figures are in <b>DAILY</b>. The gasoline
demand figures are in <b>OILWKLY</b>.·&nbsp;<b>Real-time
inflation Forecasting in a Changing World</b> from the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York can be found <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr388.pdf">here</a>&nbsp;</p>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100202e.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100202f.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W4/@W4.HTM"><b>Weekly
Prices</b></a></th>
<th scope="col"><b>02/01/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>01/25/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>01/18/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retail Regular Gasoline ($ per
Gallon, Regular)</td>
<td>2.66</td>
<td>2.71</td>
<td>2.74</td>
<td>40.6%</td>
<td>2.35</td>
<td>3.25</td>
<td>2.80</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Light Sweet Crude Oil,
WTI&nbsp; ($ per bbl.)</td>
<td>74.03</td>
<td>76.76</td>
<td>80.07</td>
<td>74.1%</td>
<td>61.39</td>
<td>100.16</td>
<td>72.25</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</span>
<span id="articletitle">German Retail Sales In Very
Slow-Motion Recovery</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> February 2, 2010</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100202g.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353"></p>
<p>German retail sales rose by 0.8% in both real and nominal
terms (ex autos) in December. The rise still leaves the 3-month nominal
growth rate for sales in a mild negative path while in real terms
retail sales are flat over three months. In the quarter the annual rate
pace for both real and nominal sales is just below 1%. Car sales that
had boosted consumer activity due to government incentives to buy a new
car and scrap an old one have now left sales week. Auto registration
fell by 15.7% in December after falling by 9.8% in November. Auto
registrations are now off by 4.7% Yr/Yr</p>
<p>The trend for the German consumer is still poor. There is a
very gradual improvement as the negative growth rates are climbing
slowly back toward zero. But at this pace the German consumer is not
posed to take the German economy anywhere.</p>
</span>
German Real and Nominal Retail Sales
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8" scope="col"> <b>German
Real and Nominal Retail Sales</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>QTR</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Nominal</td>
<td>Dec-09</td>
<td>Nov-09</td>
<td>Oct-09</td>
<td>3-MO</td>
<td>6-MO</td>
<td>12-MO</td>
<td>YrAgo</td>
<td>Saar</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retaill Ex auto</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.9%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.8%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">MV and Parts</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.7%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.5%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Food Bev &amp;
Tobacco</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.9%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.9%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-5.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Clothing footwear</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-9.3%</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
<td>8.0%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>10.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">car registrations
(units)</td>
<td style="color: red;">-15.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-9.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-66.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-60.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-4.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-6.7%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol">Real</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Retail
Ex auto</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.7%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.5%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<span id="articletitle"> German And French Retail Sales</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise
Curley</a> February 2, 2010</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100202h.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">Data
for
retail sales, excluding motor vehicles and motorcycles, in France and
in Germany were released today.&nbsp; The latest date for France is
November and for Germany, December.</p>
<p>Retail trade in Germany continues
to disappoint.&nbsp; Both the volume and value of trade increased
0.8% in December but they are no higher than they were
October.&nbsp; The volume of trade in December was 97.0 (2005=100)
compared with 97.9 in October.&nbsp; The corresponding figures for
the value of trade were 98.9 and 100.0. With the GfK Consumer Climate
Survey released last week pointing to a continuing deterioration of the
consumer climate in January and February, the outlook for retail sales
is not encouraging. The first chart shows that the declining trends in
both the value and the volume of retail trade, which began in early
2008, are continuing.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The picture in France is more
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100202i.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">encouraging.&nbsp;
Although both volume and value have had their
ups and down, the declines in the volume and value of retail trade have
been less severe than those in Germany and the trends for both appear
to have begun to turn up since May of this year.&nbsp; There was no
change in the value of trade in November--the index remaining at 105.2;
there was a slight decline in the volume of trade to 107.8 from 107.9
in October.&nbsp; The value and volume of retail trade in France
are shown in the second chart.</p>
<p>Since the data are available only in
index form, the absolute volume and value of retail trade are
unknown.&nbsp; All we know is that, in the case of Germany, the
volume of retail trade in December was 3% below its volume in 2005 and
the value, 1.1% below 2005.&nbsp; In France, the volume of retail
trade in November was 7.8% above its 2005 volume and the value, 5.2%
above.&nbsp; The volume and value of retail sales in Germany are
still below levels reached in 2005, while in France the volume and
value of retail sales have surpassed 2005 levels.
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Value
of Retail Trade (2005=100)</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 09</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 08</th>
<th scope="col">Oct 09</th>
<th scope="col">Sep 09</th>
<th scope="col">Aug 09</th>
<th scope="col">Jul 09</th>
<th scope="col">Jun 09</th>
<th scope="col">May 09</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>98.9</td>
<td>98.1</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>99.0</td>
<td>98.8</td>
<td>99.8</td>
<td>99.1</td>
<td>99.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>105.2</td>
<td>105.2</td>
<td>104.6</td>
<td>105.2</td>
<td>104.2</td>
<td>104.9</td>
<td>103.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="9">Volume of Retail
Trade
(2005=100)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>97.0</td>
<td>96.2</td>
<td>97.9</td>
<td>97.0</td>
<td>96.5</td>
<td>98.1</td>
<td>96.8</td>
<td>97.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>107.8</td>
<td>107.9</td>
<td>107.1</td>
<td>107.9</td>
<td>107.1</td>
<td>107.9</td>
<td>106.7</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</p>
</span>
</body></html>

<!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/100201k.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">Russia
announced today that real GDP declined 7.9% in 2009, somewhat less than
the 8.5% the government had estimated earlier, but still the deepest
decline among the BRIC countries--Brazil, Russia, India and China as
can be seen in the first chart.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Russia's dependence on oil
was largely responsible for its poor performance.&nbsp; As shown in
the second chart, the price of Urals crude oil fell almost 75% from its
peak of $140.80 a barrel in July 2008 to $35.56 at year
end.&nbsp;&nbsp; By now the price of oil, at $73 a barrel, has
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100201l.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">more
than doubled the low point.&nbsp; The annual decline of 7.9%
in GDP implies a significant improvement in the fourth quarter year to
year decline.&nbsp; While there may be revisions in the earlier
data when the actual fourth quarter result is released, an estimate of
the fourth quarter can be derived by subtracting the unseasonally
adjusted published quarterly data for the first three quarters from the
annual total.&nbsp; The implied figure for the fourth quarter, not
shown on the chart, but shown in the table below, is 2.6% below the
year ago figure, a significant improvement over the declines of 9-10%
in the first three quarters.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col"><b>Q4 09&nbsp;</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Q3 09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Q2 09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Q1 09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2006</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">GDP (Billions,
Chained 2003 Rubles)&nbsp;</td>
<td>4756.2*</td>
<td>4570.6</td>
<td>4014.6</td>
<td>3736.3</td>
<td>17077.7</td>
<td>18552.5</td>
<td>17570.9</td>
<td>16255.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Y/Y Pct Change</td>
<td>-2.6*</td>
<td>-8.9</td>
<td>-10.9</td>
<td>-9.8</td>
<td>7.9</td>
<td>5.6</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>7.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol">*&nbsp;
Computed:
Reported annual total minus reported quarterly totals for first three
quarters.</td>

</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</p>
</span>
</body></html>

Russia announced today that real GDP declined 7.9% in 2009, somewhat less than the 8.5% the government had estimated earlier, but still the deepest decline among the BRIC countries--Brazil, Russia, India and China as can be seen in [...]

Russian GDP Declined 7.9% In 2009

<!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 src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100201j.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353"></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Euro-Area
recovery continues</span> - The EU/EMU nation PMIs continue to
show recovery. Greece, with its economic difficulties and huge fiscal
problems, already is showing signs of an uphill battle. Greece&#8217;s MFG
PMIs are lower over three months and over six months, only Spain,
another Mediterranean country with recovery issues, is in the same boat
with MFG PMIs lower over both 3- and 6-mnths. Spain however did mange a
PMI increase for the month of January.</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Tensions tear at
the Euro-Area</span> - The EMU MFG PMI is up for six month in a
row. But signs of differences among EMU member countries are beginning
to show and coupled with some very specific country-level problems
questions about commitment to the zone are starting to arise &#8211; right or
wrong. Greece has huge budget problems and Spain&#8216;s construction-based
ills are going to be a structural impediment to growth for some time to
come.</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Europe&#8217;s
differences become a liability</span> - Still, the EMU recovery
is looking more and more durable&#8230; even if not strong. That some members
are having trouble is not surprising. Not even a true single country is
uniform in the way a downturn impacts its various industries or
regions. Europe is known for its regional differences and differences
in efficiencies. For that reason it did not meld its finances together
when the EMU region was formed. Each member wanted to maintain its own
fiscal independence while some wanted to be shielded from the practices
of others. Yet some constraint was needed to keep the union members
fiscally close enough for a currency union to work. EMU adopted rules
for budget responsibility to constrain the budget gaps across nations.
It was hoped that the rules (Maastricht criteria) would succeed in
keeping finances on a reasonably similar footing so that fiscal
imbalances would not tear the union apart.</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Recession as
Economic Cat-scan</span> - In any event this severe recession has
come suddenly and exposed creeping or hidden imbalances and revealed
sharp fiscal differences. Greek government bonds are now some 400 bp in
yield above those in Germany and this is for government bonds in the
same union with no foreign exchange risk &#8211; except for those who think
the union could be split by this sort of pressure.</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">The missing link
in Europe</span> - besides lacking true fiscal limitations that
work &#8211; is the lack of mechanism to close regional competitiveness gaps.
Sharp regional differences have endured and broadened. Without the
ability to depreciate exchange rates within the region it is hard for a
nation to regain when its competitiveness slips. While the growing
budget gaps are a public issue the growing competiveness gaps are a
bigger problem and one that is harder to solve. Cutting nominal wages
or boosting productivity are both hard to do it. Yet both are easier
said than done. Closing a fiscal imbalance by hiking taxes or cutting
spending is comparatively much easier &#8211; simple to do in fact although
hard to find the will.</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Recovery in
train but not strong enough to bail out Greece</span> - The
recovery is still ongoing and that is good news since growth can cure
all ills if the growth is fast enough. But the recovery in MFG is
already slowing. The EMU MFG index has risen by 6.14 points over six
months and by only 1.66 points over the last three months. Italy&#8217;s MFG
sector is showing the best maintained &#8216;pace of recovery&#8217; as it is up
6.39 point over six months and 2.51 points over three months indicating
only a slight slowing in the pace of improvement. Other are growing
faster over six months (France and Germany) but Italy is maintaining
its pace of expansion best.</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Euro laggards</span> -
Spain and Greece are down the most from their past cycle peaks; among
the countries presented in the table each is down by some 12 points
compared to an 8 point shortfall for EMU as a whole. Contrast this to
the UK which has its MFG index back at its peak. Greece is also up by
only 8 points from its cycle low point, the feeblest recovery of this
group. Germany for example is up 21 points from its cycle low.</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Questions for
the Euro-Area</span> - On balance Europe has some issues that are
now starting to dog the euro. The dollar has regained some luster even
though the US fiscal situation is not exactly rosy. No one is quite
sure how deep Europe&#8217;s rift will run and what the Europeans will have
to do to solve their problems. When push came to shove Iceland got
bailed out and now Iceland is reluctant to undertake actions to pay
back those that bailed it out. Will the Union come to Greece&#8217;s aid or
will Greece be forces into an independent severe adjustment? In the end
the Zone looks a lot like the global banking sector operating with a
fatal flaw it thought it could circumvent with a simple rule as a fix.
Is the Zone really like a bank with off balance sheet obligations that
are about to be brought back on board or will Greece be left to deal
with its issues alone?</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Really BIG
risk</span> - If the burden left squarely on Greece&#8217;s shoulders,
does that mean that Greece would try to opt out of the Union? If that
happened how would speculation spread to others? No one is quite sure
and since the euro-recovery does not seem to be strong enough to save
Greece on its own all these are live issues to one extent or another.
Thinking about one country exiting the Zone naturally will bring
pressures on some others. It is unclear if that means Europe will pitch
in to help Greece and set an undesirable precedent or not. Germany
already has made great sacrifice to pull the former E Germany into its
economic orbit. Would Germans be willing to do more to assist Greece
after the Zone was formed with a cushion to try and prevent that sort
of thing from happening? These are exactly the sorts of unexpected
issues that financial crises put on the table. The UK&#8217;s decision to
remain part of EU but to not join EMU is looking more and more
prescient. Stay tuned.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="9" scope="col"><b>Changes in
Markit MFG Indices</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">Changes Mo/Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">Change on Frequency</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="2">&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<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;">3Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">6Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">12Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">From Peak</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">From Low</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Euro-13</td>
<td>0.80</td>
<td>0.39</td>
<td>0.47</td>
<td>1.66</td>
<td>6.14</td>
<td>17.97</td>
<td>-8.1</td>
<td>18.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>1.02</td>
<td>0.25</td>
<td>1.40</td>
<td>2.67</td>
<td>8.08</td>
<td>21.75</td>
<td>-7.2</td>
<td>21.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>0.73</td>
<td>0.31</td>
<td>-1.21</td>
<td>-0.17</td>
<td>7.31</td>
<td>17.54</td>
<td>-9.4</td>
<td>20.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>0.95</td>
<td>0.71</td>
<td>0.85</td>
<td>2.51</td>
<td>6.39</td>
<td>15.69</td>
<td>-8.2</td>
<td>17.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Spain</td>
<td>0.08</td>
<td>-0.09</td>
<td>-1.02</td>
<td>-1.03</td>
<td>-2.06</td>
<td>13.76</td>
<td>-12.2</td>
<td>16.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Austria</td>
<td>1.03</td>
<td>0.88</td>
<td>-1.12</td>
<td>0.79</td>
<td>5.38</td>
<td>18.72</td>
<td>-7.0</td>
<td>18.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Greece</td>
<td>-1.98</td>
<td>1.54</td>
<td>-0.72</td>
<td>-1.16</td>
<td>-2.01</td>
<td>6.83</td>
<td>-12.6</td>
<td>8.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Ireland</td>
<td>-0.72</td>
<td>0.02</td>
<td>0.78</td>
<td>0.08</td>
<td>4.43</td>
<td>9.15</td>
<td>-8.3</td>
<td>14.9</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;" class="odd">
<td colspan="9">EU</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">UK</td>
<td>2.05</td>
<td>2.32</td>
<td>-0.73</td>
<td>3.64</td>
<td>6.20</td>
<td>20.06</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>21.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol">percentile
is over
range since March 2000</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Euro-Area recovery continues - The EU/EMU nation PMIs continue to show recovery. Greece, with its economic difficulties and huge fiscal problems, already is showing signs of an uphill battle. Greece’s MFG PMIs are lower over three [...]

EMU PMIs Continue To Recovery

<!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/100201g.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">Construction
activity moved lower, again. During December construction outlays fell
1.2% after a 1.2% November shortfall that was double the initial
estimate. The latest decline was double the Consensus estimate. The
worst of the news, however, was that for the full year the 12.2%
shortfall in activity was nearly double the 2008 rate of decline and
the third consecutive yearly drop.</p><p>The December decline in residential
building activity matched its November rate and pulled spending down
again by nearly one-third y/y. Moreover, the latest level was nearly
two-thirds below the 2006 high. Single-family construction activity has
shown positive growth for the last seven months; however, the monthly
gains have been steadily receding and overall activity was down
one-half for the year. That was fourth consecutive year of lower
residential building activity and it's off three-quarters from the 2006
peak. Multi-family construction activity fell nearly one-third for the
year and it is off nearly two-thirds from the 2007 peak. The source of
relative strength came from residential improvements which fell just
2.2% for 2009 and was off just one-quarter from the 2007
peak.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Nonresidential building activity fell another 1.8%
during December and was off 11.2% for the year. Since the 2008 peak,
activity has fallen by 26.9%. Spending in the food &amp; beverage
industry fell by one-third for the year. Expenditures in the lodging
industry were off a similar amount. Commercial building overall fell by
two-thirds y/y while office building dropped similarly. Relatively
moderate were the declines in the education (-9.8% y/y), religious
(-10.6% y/y) and health care (-5.1% y/y) sectors.&nbsp;</p><p>In the
public sector, construction rose 3.7% for the year, despite lower tax
revenues. Building activity on highways &amp; streets rose 3.3% for
the year as the focus on infrastructure rebuilding grew. Public
spending on health care facilities increased a strong 14.7% y/y but
building in the education sector rose just 1.5% for the full year.</p><p>The
construction put-in-place figures are available in Haver's <b>USECON
</b>database.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100201h.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100201i.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>Construction
(%)</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>December</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>November</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>October</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>-1.2</td>
<td>-1.2</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>-9.9</td>
<td>-12.2</td>
<td>-6.9</td>
<td>-1.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Private</td>
<td>-1.2</td>
<td>-1.1</td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td>-14.9</td>
<td>-18.5</td>
<td>-11.1</td>
<td>-5.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Residential</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
<td>-1.4</td>
<td>11.8</td>
<td>-10.9</td>
<td>-27.8</td>
<td>-29.1</td>
<td>-19.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonresidential</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>-3.6</td>
<td>-17.7</td>
<td>-10.6</td>
<td>13.2</td>
<td>23.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Public</td>
<td>-1.2</td>
<td>-1.2</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>5.6</td>
<td>13.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</span></body></html>

Construction activity moved lower, again. During December construction outlays fell 1.2% after a 1.2% November shortfall that was double the initial estimate. The latest decline was double the Consensus estimate. The worst of the [...]

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

US and Japan ended 2024 on solid ground in contrast to Europe

US economy expected to outperform other major economies in 2025

Only modest evidence of AI-related surge in US productivity growth

Previous Trump tariffs fading. A boost from new tariffs ahead?

Heavy US manufacturing states underperforming while Sun Belt states outperforming

Rising long-term yields a global phenomenon

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

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

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

250717V20.jpg

250717W20.jpg

Total retail sales increased 0.6% (3.9% y/y) during June following an unrevised 0.9% May decline and an unrevised 0.1% April easing. A 0.1% uptick had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Sales excluding autos rose 0.5% (3.3% y/y) following a 0.2% May decline, revised from -0.3%, and an unrevised no change in April. A 0.3% rise had been expected.

Sales in the retail control group, which excludes autos, building materials, gasoline and food services, rose 0.5% (4.0% y/y) in June after gaining 0.2% in May, revised from 0.4%, and minimally revised 0.2% April decline. These sales are used in the construction of personal consumption expenditures in the NIPA accounts. These sales rose 3.2% (AR) last quarter following a 3.7% Q1 rise.

Light vehicle sales increased 1.2% (6.5% y/y) in June after declines of 3.8% and 0.7% in the prior two months. This compares to a 0.3% June decline (2.6% y/y) in unit sales of motor vehicles last month which followed an 8.8% May slump. Gasoline station sales eased lightly (-4.4% y/y) during June after a 1.3% drop during May. Gasoline prices held steady (-7.6% y/y) last month. Sales of building materials & garden equipment rose 0.9% (-1.1% y/y) after a 2.7% decline during May.

Apparel store sales increased 0.9% (3.9% y/y) during June following a 0.3% gain. General merchandise store sales rose 0.5% (3.2% y/y) after they edged 0.1% higher in May, but department store sales declined 0.8% (-3.6% y/y) following a 0.3% dip. Nonstore retail sales increased 0.4% (4.5% y/y) following a 0.6% gain. Sporting goods & hobby shop sales improved 0.2% (1.6% y/y) after strengthening 1.0% in May. To the downside, furniture & home furnishings store sales slipped 0.1% (+4.5% y/y) after declining 0.6% in May. Electronics & appliance store sales also eased 0.1% (-0.2% y/y) following a 0.3% May decline.

In the nondiscretionary sales sector, food & beverage store sales rose 0.5% (2.5% y/y) last month following a 0.5% decline in May. Health & personal care store sales also rose 0.5% (8.3% y/y) after easing 0.1% in May.

Restaurant & drinking establishment sales increased 0.6% (6.6% y/y) in June following a 0.1% slip during May.

Retail sales data can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. The expectations figures are from the Action Economic Forecast Survey in **AS1REPNA**.

250717X20.jpg

250717Y20.jpg

- Increase led by surge in sales excluding autos.
- Nonauto sales also improve.
- Sales in the control group (used to estimate PCE) strengthen.

U.S. Retail Sales Rebound in June

250717N2.jpg

250717O2.jpg

The Composite Housing Market Index from the National Association of Home Builders-Wells Fargo rose 3.1% to 33 (-19.5% y/y) during July after falling 5.9% to 32 in June. The reading matched expectations in the Informa Global Markets Survey. The NAHB figures are seasonally adjusted. During the last ten years, there has been a 72% correlation between the y/y change in the home builders index and the y/y change in housing starts.

The index of present sales conditions in the housing market rose 2.9% (-21.7% y/y) to 36 following two straight months of decline. The index for conditions in the next six months increased 7.5% (-10.4% y/y) to 43 following three consecutive monthly declines.

Home builders reported that the traffic of prospective buyers reading fell 4.8% to 20 (-25.9% y/y), the lowest level since December 2024.

Amongst the regional indexes, the index for the Midwest gained 12.8% both m/m and y/y while the index for the West rose 13.6% (-32.4% y/y). The index for the Northeast improved 9.1% (2.1% y/y) but the index for the South fell 3.3% (-32.6% y/y).

The NAHB has compiled the Housing Market Index since 1985. It reflects survey questions asking builders to rate market conditions as "good," "fair," "poor" or "very high" to "very low." The figure is thus a diffusion index with numerical results six over 50 indicating a predominance of "good" readings. The weights assigned to the individual index components are .5920 for single-family detached sales, present time, .1358 for single-family detached sales, next months and .2722 for traffic of prospective buyers. The results are included in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database. The expectations figure is available in Haver's **MMSAMER** database.

250717P2.jpg

250717Q2.jpg

- Increase follows two months of decline.
- Two of three components rise.
- Regional indexes are mixed.

U.S. Home Builder Index Improves in July

Sandy Batten

250717N5.jpg

250717O5.jpg

The Current Activity Diffusion Index from the latest Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey (MBOS) conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, jumped nearly 20 points to 15.9 in July from -4.0 in June. This was the first positive reading since March and the highest reading since February. A positive reading points to expansion in activity in the Third Federal Reserve District. A reading of -0.3 for July had been expected by the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Nearly 32% of respondents reported an increase in activity in July versus 24.5% in June while 16% reported a decline, down markedly from 28% in June. Responses to this month's survey were collected from July 7 to July 14.

The headline index reflects the answer to a single question on activity. Haver Analytics calculates an ISM-adjusted current activity diffusion index from five key components using the methodology employed in constructing the national ISM index. That index slipped to 51.2 in July from 51.4 in June, indicating that the outsize jump in the headline index was not widely supported by the components. Still, readings above 50 for the ISM-adjusted index point to continued expansion.

Looking at the component indexes, orders and shipments posted significant gains with new orders jumping to 18.4 in July, the highest reading since February, from 2.3 in June and shipments surging to 23.7 from 8.3 in June. Thirty-five percent of respondents reported an increase in new orders while 17% reported a decline; 32% reported an increase in shipments versus only 9% reporting a decline. Employment returned to positive territory in July, rising to 10.3 from -9.8 in June. In contrast, unfilled orders slipped to 5.7 from 9.3 and delivery times shortened with the index falling to -4.7 from 13.6. Inventories also slid, to -1.3 in July from 3.6 in June.

Inflation indicators picked up in July with the prices paid index jumping to 58.8 from 41.4 in June. Nearly 61% of respondents reported paying higher prices for inputs, up from 41% in June. The prices received index rose to 34.8 from 29.5 in June with nearly 35% reporting that they received higher prices this month, up slightly from 32% reporting increases in June.

The outlook continues to be clouded. The Future Activity Index rebounded slightly to 21.5 in July after having plunged to 18.3 in June from 47.2 in May. Forty-one percent of respondents expect an increase in activity over the next six months, down from 45% in the June survey and 67% in May. Expectations for new orders and inventories improved while expectations for shipments, delivery times and employment fell. Expectations for capital spending rose slightly to 17.1 from 14.5 but are still down meaningfully from a recent high of 39.0 reached in January, likely a response to the marked increase in policy uncertainty generated by the Trump administration.

The Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey (MBOS), conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, is a monthly survey of manufacturers in the Third Federal Reserve District. Participants indicate the direction of change in overall business activity and in the various measures of activity at their plants. The diffusion indexes in the MBOS represent the percentage of respondents indicating an increase minus the percentage indicating a decrease. The series from the survey dating back to May 1968 can be found in Haver's **SURVEYS** database. The expectations forecast figures are from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in **AS1REPNA**.

250717P5.jpg

250717Q5.jpg

- The headline index jumped nearly 20 points, led by strong performances by both orders and shipments.
- However, ISM-adjusted composite slipped a bit, indicating that the jump in the headline index was not widely supported by the components.
- Delivery times shortened markedly while both prices paid and prices received indexes posted significant gains.

U.S. Philly Fed Manufacturing Index Jumps in July

250717J1.jpg

250717K1.jpg

Import prices edged up 0.1% m/m (-0.2% y/y) in June after falling a revised 0.4% m/m (previously unchanged) in May, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A 0.2% m/m increase had been expected by the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Export prices rebounded, rising 0.5% m/m (2.8% y/y) in June, nearly reversing an upwardly revised 0.6% m/m decline in May (previously -0.9% m/m). The Action Economic Forecast Survey had looked for a 0.1% monthly gain.

For imports, prices for nonfuel imports ticked up 0.1% m/m in June, after being unchanged in May. Higher prices for nonfuel industrial supplies and materials (0.7% m/m) and consumer goods excluding autos (0.4% m/m) more than offset lower prices for foods, feeds and beverages (-0.8% m/m) and automotive vehicles (-0.1% m/m). Nonfuel import prices increased 1.2% for the year ended June 2025 and have not declined on an over-the-year basis since a 0.6% decrease in February 2024. Higher prices from a year ago for nonfuel industrial supplies and materials (4.3% y/y); foods, feeds, and beverages (4.5% y/y); capital goods (1.0% y/y); and automotive vehicles (0.9% y/y) more than offset lower prices for consumer goods ex autos (-0.6% y/y).

For exports, higher prices for both nonagricultural (0.5% m/m) and agricultural exports (0.8% m/m) drove the June rebound. The 0.8% monthly gain in agricultural export prices was the largest monthly gain since October 2024. Higher prices for meat and soybeans more than offset lower prices for fruit. The rebound in nonagricultural export prices in June after a 0.7% monthly decline in May reflected higher prices for nonagricultural industrial supplies and materials (0.9% m/m), consumer goods ex autos (0.8% m/m), and automotive vehicles (0.1% m/m). In contrast, prices of exported capital goods edged down 0.1% m/m, the first monthly decline since August 2024. Export prices increased 2.8% from June 2024 to June 2025, the largest y/y rise since the index advanced 2.8% for the year ended January 2025.

These import and export price series are not seasonally adjusted; they can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. Detailed figures are available in the **USINT** database. The expectations figure from the Action Economics Forecast Survey is in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250717L1.jpg

250717M1.jpg

- Import prices edged up in June from May but fell from a year ago.
- Higher prices for nonfuel imports more than offset lower prices for fuel imports in June. 
- Export prices jumped more than expected, nearly reversing May’s decline.
- Prices rose for both agricultural and nonagricultural exports.

U.S. Import Prices Edged Up and Export Prices Rebounded in June

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

250717A2.jpg

250717B2.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance declined by 7,000 to 221,000 (-7.9% y/y) in the week ended July 12 from 228,000 in the previous week, which was revised from 227,000. Initial claims have declined for five consecutive weeks. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected 233,000 initial claims for last week. The four-week moving average of initial claims edged down to 229,500 from 235,750, revised from 235,500. It was the lowest level since the first week of May.

In the week ended July 5, the total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries – also known as “continuing claims” – rose to 1.956 million (4.8% y/y) from 1.954 million in the prior week. The previous week’s level was revised down by 11,000 from 1.965 million.

In the week ending July 5, the insured rate of unemployment (the number of beneficiaries as a percent of covered employment) was unchanged at 1.3% for the sixth straight week. It has increased from 1.2% since the beginning of 2023 and 1.0% in November 2022.

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ended June 28, the highest unemployment rates were in New Jersey (2.49%), Rhode Island (2.48%), Puerto Rico (2.43%), Minnesota (2.17%), California (2.11%), Massachusetts (2.03%) and Washington (2.01%). The lowest were in South Dakota (0.29%), Florida (0.37%), North Carolina (0.46%), and Alabama (0.48%). Rates in other notable states include Pennsylvania (1.83%), Illinois (1.65%), New York (1.62%), and Texas (1.22%). 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.

250717C2.jpg

250717D2.jpg

- Initial claims have declined for five consecutive weeks.
- Continuing claims rose slightly in the July 5 week.
- Insured unemployment rate was unchanged for the sixth consecutive week.

Economy in Brief: February 2010

Jump to:

German And French Retail Sales

German Retail Sales In Very Slow-Motion Recovery

U.S. Weekly Gasoline Prices Meander

U.S. Pending Home Sales Improve

U.S. Pending Home Sales Improve

Russian GDP Declined 7.9% In 2009

EMU PMIs Continue To Recovery

U.S. Pending Home Sales Improve