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/080409c.jpg" width="353">
For February, the National Association of Realtors reported that the level of pending sales of existing homes fell 1.9% after having been roughly unchanged in January. The latest reading was as expected and it was down 11.6% from the average sales level in 2007.
These 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.
On a running basis three month basis, the rate of decline in home sales eased somewhat to -10.2% (AR) from the worst rate of decline of over 40% last summer.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080409d.jpg" width="353">
Sales in the West actually have risen 20.7% from their low last August and the three month rate of change through February soared to 62.9%.
That improvement, however, was countered by a sharp deterioration in sales in the South where the three month change in sales fell to a negative 42.7%.
Despite a 3.7% decline in February sales in the Midwest, on a three month basis sales have stabilized and show a slight increase. In the Northeast sales rose 3.2% last month but the three month change remained quite negative at -11.4%.
The Realtors also indicated in an earlier report that the number of homes on the market and available for sale fell 3.0% (+6.0% y/y) in February. At the current sales rate there were 9.6 months of homes on the market versus an 8.9 months average during all of last year.
The pending home sales data are available in Haver&#39;s PREALTOR database and the number of homes on the market are in the REALTOR database.
Energy and the Economy from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is available <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/net/20080401/netpub.pdf"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Pending Home Sales (2001=100)&nbsp;</a></th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>84.6</td>
<td>&nbsp;86.2</td>
<td>&nbsp;&nbsp; -21.4%</td>
<td>95.7</td>
<td>112.1&nbsp;</td>
<td>124.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Northeast</td>
<td>71.8</td>
<td>69.6</td>
<td>-25.4</td>
<td>85.6</td>
<td>98.5</td>
<td>108.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Midwest</td>
<td>82.7</td>
<td>85.9</td>
<td>-17.4</td>
<td>89.6</td>
<td>102.0</td>
<td>116.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; South</td>
<td>85.0</td>
<td>89.9</td>
<td>-30.3</td>
<td>107.3</td>
<td>127.3</td>
<td>134.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; West</td>
<td>95.8</td>
<td>93.8</td>
<td>-6.2</td>
<td>92.3</td>
<td>109.5</td>
<td>128.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

For February, the National Association of Realtors reported that the level of pending sales of existing homes fell 1.9% after having been roughly unchanged in January. The latest reading was as expected and it was down 11.6% from the [...]

U.S. Pending Home Sales Fell As Expected in February

<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/080409a.jpg" width="353">
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in the Job Openings &amp; Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) that for February, the job openings rate was unchanged from the prior month at 2.7%. The 2008 figures continued down from 2007 and from 2006. 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 actual number of total job openings fell 1.8% m/m to 3.820 million and the number of job openings was down 8.3% from February 2007. Openings in the construction industry were down 40.9% from a year ago and job opening in manufacturing were off 27.9%. Professional &amp; business services job openings were up 10.8% as were job openings in the education &amp; health sectors by 9.4%
By region, openings in the Northeast were down 14.4% y/y and they were down 7.9% in the South. Openings were down 5.7% in the Midwest and by 4.3% in the West.
The hires rate was stable m/m at 3.4% but remained below the levels of the last several years. The hires rate is the number of hires during the month divided by employment.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080409b.jpg" width="353">
The actual number of hires also was stable m/m at 4.638 million but declined by 3.4% y/y. Hires declined by 2.4% during all of 2007.
The job separations rate ticked up to 3.3% during February but it was stable versus a year ago. Separations include quits, layoffs, discharges, and other separations as well as retirements. The level of job separations fell 0.9% y/y.
The JOLTS survey dates only to December 2000 but has since followed the movement in nonfarm payrolls, though the actual correlation between the two series is low.
A description of the Jolts survey and the latest release from the U.S. Department of Labor is available <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm">here</a>.
The minutes to the latest meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20080318.pdf"> here</a>
Today&#39;s speech by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke titled The Importance of Financial Education and the National Jump Start Coalition Survey are available <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20080409a.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 &nbsp;Turnover Survey)</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">February &#39;07</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Job Openings, Total&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rate (%)</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Total (000s)</td>
<td>3,820</td>
<td>3,889</td>
<td>4,168</td>
<td>3,974</td>
<td>4,272</td>
<td>3,863</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Hires, Total </td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rate (%)</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>41.9</td>
<td>43.4</td>
<td>43.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Total (000s)</td>
<td>4,638</td>
<td>4,639</td>
<td>4,800</td>
<td>57,771</td>
<td>59,153</td>
<td>57,501</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in the Job Openings & Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) that for February, the job openings rate was unchanged from the prior month at 2.7%. The 2008 figures continued down from 2007 and from 2006. [...]

JOLTS: Job Openings & Hire Rates Still in Decline

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080409a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in the Job Openings
&amp; Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) that for February, the job
openings rate was unchanged from the prior month at 2.7%. The 2008
figures continued down from 2007 and from 2006. 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 actual number of total job openings fell 1.8% m/m to 3.820 million and the number of
job openings was down 8.3% from February 2007. Openings in
the construction industry were down 40.9% from a year ago and job
opening in manufacturing were off 27.9%. Professional &amp;
business services job openings were up 10.8% as were job openings in
the education &amp; health sectors by 9.4%
By region, openings in the Northeast were down 14.4% y/y and
they were down 7.9% in the South. Openings were down 5.7% in the
Midwest and by 4.3% in the West.
The hires rate was stable m/m at 3.4% but remained below the
levels of the last several years. The hires rate is the
number of hires during the month divided by employment.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080409b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The actual number of hires also was stable m/m at 4.638
million but declined by 3.4% y/y. Hires declined by 2.4% during all of
2007.
The job separations rate ticked up to 3.3% during February but
it was stable versus a year ago. Separations include quits,
layoffs, discharges, and other separations as well as retirements. The
level of job separations fell 0.9% y/y.
The JOLTS survey dates only to December 2000 but has since
followed the movement in nonfarm payrolls, though the actual
correlation between the two series is low.
A description of the Jolts survey and the latest release from
the U.S. Department of Labor is available <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm">here</a>.
The minutes to the latest meeting of the Federal
Open Market Committee can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20080318.pdf">
here</a>
Today's speech by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
titled The Importance of Financial Education and the National
Jump Start Coalition Survey are available <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20080409a.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 &nbsp;Turnover Survey)</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">February '07</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Job Openings, Total&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rate (%)</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Total (000s)</td>
<td>3,820</td>
<td>3,889</td>
<td>4,168</td>
<td>3,974</td>
<td>4,272</td>
<td>3,863</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Hires, Total </td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rate (%)</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>41.9</td>
<td>43.4</td>
<td>43.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Total (000s)</td>
<td>4,638</td>
<td>4,639</td>
<td>4,800</td>
<td>57,771</td>
<td>59,153</td>
<td>57,501</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Pending Home Sales Fell As
Expected in February 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> April 9, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080409c.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
For February, the National Association of Realtors reported
that the level of pending sales of existing homes fell 1.9% after
having been roughly unchanged in January. The latest reading was as
expected and it was down 11.6% from the average sales level in 2007.
These 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.
On a running basis three month basis, the rate of decline in
home sales eased somewhat to -10.2% (AR) from the worst rate of decline
of over 40% last summer. <img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080409d.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Sales in the West actually have risen 20.7% from their low
last August and the three month rate of change through February soared
to 62.9%.
That improvement, however, was countered by a sharp
deterioration in sales in the South where the three month change in
sales fell to a negative 42.7%.
Despite a 3.7% decline in February sales in the Midwest, on a
three month basis sales have stabilized and show a slight increase. In
the Northeast sales rose 3.2% last month but the three month change
remained quite negative at -11.4%.
The Realtors also indicated in an earlier report that the
number of homes on the market and available for sale fell 3.0% (+6.0%
y/y) in February. At the current sales rate there were 9.6 months of
homes on the market versus an 8.9 months average during all of last
year.
The pending home sales data are available in Haver's PREALTOR
database and the number of homes on the market are in the REALTOR
database.
Energy and the Economy from the Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis is available <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/net/20080401/netpub.pdf">
here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Pending
Home Sales (2001=100)&nbsp;</a></th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>84.6</td>
<td>&nbsp;86.2</td>
<td>&nbsp;&nbsp; -21.4%</td>
<td>95.7</td>
<td>112.1&nbsp;</td>
<td>124.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Northeast</td>
<td>71.8</td>
<td>69.6</td>
<td>-25.4</td>
<td>85.6</td>
<td>98.5</td>
<td>108.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Midwest</td>
<td>82.7</td>
<td>85.9</td>
<td>-17.4</td>
<td>89.6</td>
<td>102.0</td>
<td>116.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; South</td>
<td>85.0</td>
<td>89.9</td>
<td>-30.3</td>
<td>107.3</td>
<td>127.3</td>
<td>134.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; West</td>
<td>95.8</td>
<td>93.8</td>
<td>-6.2</td>
<td>92.3</td>
<td>109.5</td>
<td>128.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
German Trade Picture Produces
aHigher Surplus on Weak Imports 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> April 9, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080409f.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The German trade picture shows a month-to-month slowing
imports and flat exports. The slowdown in both the flows may be just
monthly volatility or something more ominous. So far Europeans have
remained up beat on their economic outlook even as the US economy has
slipped. The OECD has held its forecast for 2008 growth for Germany
above 2% while the fresh IMF forecast du jour (in fact, of today) cuts
German growth by just 0.1% from the IMF&#8217;s last guess in January,
bringing it to a pace of 1.4%.
The growth rates for exports and imports may be a bit
misleading in the table, due to recent volatility.
As the chart shows, both exports and imports accelerated from a
September low for imports and a November low for exports. Both series
have since topped out and growth rates have declined. The trade surplus
plunged in December from a high in November but has since begun to edge
higher as the pace of both exports and imports has cooled.
In the recent three-month period German imports of capital
goods have been surging while German capital goods exports have
remained subdued. Capital goods have been the lifeblood of the German
economy. Domestically, consumption has just not kicked up. Consumer
goods imports are holding steady at around a 6% growth rate while
exports of consumer goods have been 20% to 25% over the recent year to
three months in terms of annualized rates of growth. For the moment
German trade flows appear to be slowing.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="6" scope="col"> German
Trade Trends for Goods</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="2">m/m%</td>
<td colspan="3">% Saar</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td> Feb-08</td>
<td> Jan-08</td>
<td> 3M</td>
<td> 6M</td>
<td> 12M</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Balance*</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 16.37</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 16.10</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 16.09</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 17.48</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 16.83</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol"> EXPORTS</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">All Exports</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td> 9.3%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capital Goods</td>
<td>&nbsp;--</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td> 3.0%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Motor Vehicles</td>
<td>&nbsp;--</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td> -1.0%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Goods</td>
<td>&nbsp;--</td>
<td>10.3%</td>
<td>23.7%</td>
<td> 25.6%</td>
<td>18.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol"> IMPORTS</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">All Imports</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td> 41.9%</td>
<td> 6.1%</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capital Goods</td>
<td>&nbsp;--</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>11.4%</td>
<td> 13.5%</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Motor Vehicles</td>
<td>&nbsp;--</td>
<td>12.0%</td>
<td>-6.3%</td>
<td> 18.3%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Goods</td>
<td>&nbsp;--</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td> 4.7%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="6" class="firstcol">*Bil.Euros;
mo or period
average; Shaded area trends lag one month</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
UK Output: Suddenly on the Mend 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> April 9, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080409e.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The sequential growth rates for January tell the story
compared to their February counterparts: In January year/eayr output
growth was 0.7% sliding to an annual rate of 0.6% over six months and
to a pace of 0.4% over three months. UK MFG was slow and slowing. Now
in February year-over-year growth is 2%, six-month growth still slows,
but to 1%, and three-month growth is a solid rebound at 2.7%. Consumer
durables are a big reason for the shift with a three-month growth rate
up to 19.7% saar. Intermediate
goods output is still declining over three months but capital goods
output is up a strong 4.8% after being flat over three months in
January. The detail shows that much of that rebound is in the volatile
auto sector.
Still there is a clear sign of progress. The chart on the left
demonstrates that a falling growth pattern has been arrested and
features a fledgling upturn of some strength. It may be that the
weakness in the pound sterling has something to do with this
re-vitalization. Domestic UK spending patterns have not been so strong
and confidence continues to slip. If the recovery in output is for
real, and not just an artifact of monthly volatility, it is probably
the exchange rate at work.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="11" scope="col">UK IP and
MFG </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Saar except m/m</td>
<td colspan="3">Mo/Mo</td>
<td>Feb 
08</td>
<td>Jan 
08</td>
<td>Feb 
08</td>
<td>Jan 
08</td>
<td>Feb 
08</td>
<td>Jan 
08</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">UK MFG</td>
<td>Feb 
08</td>
<td>Jan 
08</td>
<td>Dec 
07</td>
<td>3Mo</td>
<td>3-Mo</td>
<td>6mo</td>
<td>6mo</td>
<td>12mo</td>
<td>12mo</td>
<td>Q1 
Date</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="11">Consumer</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Durables</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>19.7%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
<td>-5.0%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>10.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nondurables</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-2.5%</td>
<td>-3.7%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-3.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Capital</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Memo: Detail</td>
<td>1Mo%</td>
<td>1Mo%</td>
<td>1Mo%</td>
<td>3Mo</td>
<td>3Mo</td>
<td>6mo</td>
<td>6mo</td>
<td>12mo</td>
<td>12mo</td>
<td>Q-4 
Date</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Food Drink &amp; Tobacco</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Textile &amp; Leather</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>-7.1%</td>
<td>-6.3%</td>
<td>-6.2%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Motor Vehicles &amp; Trailer</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>19.9%</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Mining and Quarrying</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>-4.4%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>-16.1%</td>
<td>-20.7%</td>
<td>-10.8%</td>
<td>-11.2%</td>
<td>-6.4%</td>
<td>-3.6%</td>
<td>-21.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Electricity, Gas &amp; Water</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>-5.0%</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>-4.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</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>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408h.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
According to the National Federation of Independent Business
(NFIB), small business optimism during March fell to the lowest level
since 1980. The 3.6% m/m decline to a reading of 89.6 followed a modest
1.2% February rise. The drop lowered the level of sentiment 7.3% below
the 2007 average and it was the lowest level since the short, "credit
crunch" recession of 1980.
During the last ten years there has been a 70% correlation
between the level of the NFIB index and the two quarter change in real
GDP.
Seven percent of firms indicated that credit was harder to
get. That was near the highs of the last several months and it was more
than double the percentage during 2004.
Twenty three percent fewer respondents in March expected the
economy to improve and only three percent of the respondents expected
to raise employment. That was the least since 2003. During the last ten
years there has been a 72% correlation between the NFIB employment
percentage and the y/y change in nonfarm payrolls.
Only five percent of respondents thought that now was a good
time to expand the business, the least since 1982, and expectations for
earnings fell to the lowest level since 1982.
The percentage of firms actually raising
prices rose m/m to 18% which was the highest level since July of 2007.
During the last ten years there has been a 60% correlation between the
change in the producer price index and the level of the NFIB price
index. The percentage of firms planning to raise
prices also rose to 29%, its highest since August 2006. 

About 24 million businesses exist in the United States. Small
business creates 80% of all new jobs in America.
The NFIB figures can be found in Haver's SURVEYS
database.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408j.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312">
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408i.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312">

<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/@S7/@S7.HTM">Nat'l
Federation of Independent Business</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Small Business Optimism Index
(1986=100)</td>
<td>89.6</td>
<td>92.9</td>
<td>-7.9%</td>
<td>96.7</td>
<td>98.9</td>
<td>101.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

According to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), small business optimism during March fell to the lowest level since 1980. The 3.6% m/m decline to a reading of 89.6 followed a modest 1.2% February rise. The drop [...]

U.S. Small Business Optimism Lowest Since 1980

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>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408h.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312"><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408f.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312">
Economy watchers in Japan are people who hold jobs that enable
them to gauge present conditions and future prospects in their
respective lines of business. Since 2001, there have been some 2050
watchers reporting to the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office presents
the results of the surveys in the form of diffusion indexes.
The Economy Watchers diffusion index for current conditions
rose for the second month reaching 36.9 in March from 33.6 in February
and 31.8 in January. The diffusion index for future conditions,
however, <img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408g.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
fell in March to 38.2, after showing the first rise in 9
months in February. The indexes of both current and future conditions
can be seen in the first chart.
Expectations of lower future conditions were registered in
every category except for retail sales where the diffusion index rose
by a tenth of a percentage point. There are close correlations among
the diffusion indexes of the various categories relating to current and
future conditions. For example, the correlation between the indexes of
future conditions for households and corporations is .94, as seen in
the second chart. Similar high correlations are present in other
combinations which suggests that all the Economy Watchers in the
various lines of business have similar appraisals of current and future
conditions.
As an indicator of trends in the whole economy, the Economy
Watchers diffusion index of future conditions does not appear to be a
particularly good forecaster. The final chart shows the quarterly
changes in the diffusion index of future conditions and in GDP and the
correlation (R) between the two series. The R2
which measures the degree to which the change in the GDP is accounted
for by the change in the diffusion index is only 12%.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">JAPAN:&nbsp;
ECONOMY WATCHERS SURVEY (Diffusion Indexes)&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 08</th>
<th scope="col">Feb&nbsp; 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">M/M Chg&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y Chg&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol">Current Conditions</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total
&nbsp;</td>
<td>36.9</td>
<td>33.6</td>
<td>50.8</td>
<td>9.87</td>
<td>-27.36</td>
<td>44.9</td>
<td>51.4</td>
<td>50.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Households&nbsp;</td>
<td>37.4</td>
<td>33.1</td>
<td>79.9</td>
<td>12.99</td>
<td>-25.05</td>
<td>44.0</td>
<td>49.8</td>
<td>49.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Corporations</td>
<td>36.0</td>
<td>34.4</td>
<td>50.7</td>
<td>4.65</td>
<td>-29.27</td>
<td>45.1</td>
<td>51.8</td>
<td>50.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;
Manufacturing&nbsp;</td>
<td>35.5</td>
<td>34.5</td>
<td>48.7</td>
<td>2.90</td>
<td>-27.10</td>
<td>44.6</td>
<td>50.1</td>
<td>48.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;
Non Manufacturing</td>
<td>36.2</td>
<td>34.3</td>
<td>52.7</td>
<td>5.54</td>
<td>-31.31</td>
<td>45.4</td>
<td>53.6</td>
<td>52.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol">Future Conditions</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total
&nbsp;</td>
<td>38.2</td>
<td>39.5</td>
<td>51.3</td>
<td>-3.29</td>
<td>-25.54</td>
<td>46.9</td>
<td>52.9</td>
<td>51.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Households&nbsp;</td>
<td>38.8</td>
<td>39.6</td>
<td>51.6</td>
<td>-2.02</td>
<td>-24.81</td>
<td>46.6</td>
<td>52.5</td>
<td>50.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Corporations</td>
<td>36.1</td>
<td>38.6</td>
<td>47.9</td>
<td>-6.48</td>
<td>-24.63</td>
<td>45.8</td>
<td>51.7</td>
<td>50.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;
Manufacturing&nbsp;</td>
<td>36.8</td>
<td>39.6</td>
<td>47.2</td>
<td>-7.07</td>
<td>-22.03</td>
<td>45.2</td>
<td>50.6</td>
<td>49.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;
Non Manufacturing</td>
<td>35.2</td>
<td>37.4</td>
<td>48.6</td>
<td>-5.88</td>
<td>-27.57</td>
<td>46.4</td>
<td>52.9</td>
<td>52.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Economy watchers in Japan are people who hold jobs that enable them to gauge present conditions and future prospects in their respective lines of business. Since 2001, there have been some 2050 watchers reporting to the Cabinet [...]

Japanese Economy Watchers See Improvement In Current Conditions, But Deterioration In Future Conditions

<!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>
 



Consumer credit outstanding rose $5.1B during February,
roughly half the gain posted for January.
The weak rise lowered three month growth in credit to 2.8%
(AR) which, due to slower growth in consumer spending, was half the
rate of gain during all of last year.
Growth in revolving credit slowed only somewhat m/m to $4.7B
but three month growth halved from its November high to 5.4% (AR).
The gain in non-revolving credit, which accounts for nearly
two thirds of total consumer credit, grew just $0.5B and the three
month growth rate dropped to 1.3% (AR) versus a high of 8.1% last
September.
These figures are the major input to the Fed's Flow of Funds
accounts for the household sector, released quarterly.
The Recession Dating Procedure from the
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) can be found <a href="http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html">here</a>.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408c.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312"><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408d.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312">

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Consumer
Credit (m/m Chg, SAAR)</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>$5.1B</td>
<td>&nbsp;$10.3B</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Revolving</td>
<td>$4.7B</td>
<td>$5.6B</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non-revolving</td>
<td>$0.5B</td>
<td>$4.8B</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Consumer credit outstanding rose $5.1B during February, roughly half the gain posted for January. The weak rise lowered three month growth in credit to 2.8% (AR) which, due to slower growth in consumer spending, was half the rate of [...]

U.S. Consumer Credit Growth Eased in February

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
According to the International Council of Shopping Centers
ICSC-UBS Chain Store survey, sales rose 0.7% last week and recovered
the declines of the prior two weeks. The increase left the opening
level of sales this month 0.5% higher than the March average which was
unchanged from February.
&gt;During the last ten years there has been a 45% correlation
between the y/y change in chain store sales and the change in nonauto
retail sales less gasoline.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
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.
During the latest week the leading indicator of chain store
sales from ICSC-UBS plunged 1.8% last week to the lowest level since
early 2002.
Higher prices for gasoline prices are just one factor
dampening any rise in store sales. The four cent rise last week lifted
the retail price for a gallon of regular to $3.32, up 28 cents or 9.1%
this year.
Global Economic and Financial Challenges:
Implications for Latin America is yesterday's speech by Fed
Governor Randall S. Kroszner and it can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20080404a.htm">
here</a>.
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS
(SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">04/04/08</th>
<th scope="col">03/28/08</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain
Store Sales</td>
<td>490.8</td>
<td>487.5</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>04/07/08</td>
<td>3/31/08</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Retail Gasoline ($
per gallon)</td>
<td>3.32</td>
<td>3.29</td>
<td>18.9%</td>
<td>2.80</td>
<td>2.57</td>
<td>2.27</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

According to the International Council of Shopping Centers ICSC-UBS Chain Store survey, sales rose 0.7% last week and recovered the declines of the prior two weeks. The increase left the opening level of sales this month 0.5% higher [...]

U.S. Chain Store Sales Rise Moderate, Gas Prices Rise Strong

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
According to the International Council of Shopping Centers
ICSC-UBS Chain Store survey, sales rose 0.7% last week and recovered
the declines of the prior two weeks. The increase left the opening
level of sales this month 0.5% higher than the March average which was
unchanged from February.
&gt;During the last ten years there has been a 45%
correlation
between the y/y change in chain store sales and the change in nonauto
retail sales less gasoline.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
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.
During the latest week the leading indicator of chain store
sales from ICSC-UBS plunged 1.8% last week to the lowest level since
early 2002.
Higher prices for gasoline prices are just one factor
dampening any rise in store sales. The four cent rise last week lifted
the retail price for a gallon of regular to $3.32, up 28 cents or 9.1%
this year.
Global Economic and Financial Challenges:
Implications for Latin America is yesterday's speech by Fed
Governor Randall S. Kroszner and it can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20080404a.htm">
here</a>.
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS
(SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">04/04/08</th>
<th scope="col">03/28/08</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain
Store Sales</td>
<td>490.8</td>
<td>487.5</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>04/07/08</td>
<td>3/31/08</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Retail Gasoline ($
per gallon)</td>
<td>3.32</td>
<td>3.29</td>
<td>18.9%</td>
<td>2.80</td>
<td>2.57</td>
<td>2.27</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

U.S. Consumer Credit Growth Eased
in February 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> April 8, 2008


Consumer credit outstanding rose $5.1B during February,
roughly half the gain posted for January.
The weak rise lowered three month growth in credit to 2.8%
(AR) which, due to slower growth in consumer spending, was half the
rate of gain during all of last year.
Growth in revolving credit slowed only somewhat m/m to $4.7B
but three month growth halved from its November high to 5.4% (AR).
The gain in non-revolving credit, which accounts for nearly
two thirds of total consumer credit, grew just $0.5B and the three
month growth rate dropped to 1.3% (AR) versus a high of 8.1% last
September.
These figures are the major input to the Fed's Flow of Funds
accounts for the household sector, released quarterly.
The Recession Dating Procedure from the
National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) can be found <a href="http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html">here</a>.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408c.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312"><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408d.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312">

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Consumer
Credit (m/m Chg, SAAR)</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>$5.1B</td>
<td>&nbsp;$10.3B</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Revolving</td>
<td>$4.7B</td>
<td>$5.6B</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non-revolving</td>
<td>$0.5B</td>
<td>$4.8B</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Japanese Economy Watchers See
Improvement In Current Conditions, But Deterioration In Future
Conditions 
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise
Curley</a> April 8, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408h.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312"><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408f.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312">
Economy watchers in Japan are people who hold jobs that enable
them to gauge present conditions and future prospects in their
respective lines of business. Since 2001, there have been some 2050
watchers reporting to the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office presents
the results of the surveys in the form of diffusion indexes.
The Economy Watchers diffusion index for current conditions
rose for the second month reaching 36.9 in March from 33.6 in February
and 31.8 in January. The diffusion index for future conditions,
however, <img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408g.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
fell in March to 38.2, after showing the first rise in 9
months in February. The indexes of both current and future conditions
can be seen in the first chart.
Expectations of lower future conditions were registered in
every category except for retail sales where the diffusion index rose
by a tenth of a percentage point. There are close correlations among
the diffusion indexes of the various categories relating to current and
future conditions. For example, the correlation between the indexes of
future conditions for households and corporations is .94, as seen in
the second chart. Similar high correlations are present in other
combinations which suggests that all the Economy Watchers in the
various lines of business have similar appraisals of current and future
conditions.
As an indicator of trends in the whole economy, the Economy
Watchers diffusion index of future conditions does not appear to be a
particularly good forecaster. The final chart shows the quarterly
changes in the diffusion index of future conditions and in GDP and the
correlation (R) between the two series. The R2
which measures the degree to which the change in the GDP is accounted
for by the change in the diffusion index is only 12%.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">JAPAN:&nbsp;
ECONOMY WATCHERS SURVEY (Diffusion Indexes)&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 08</th>
<th scope="col">Feb&nbsp; 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">M/M Chg&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y Chg&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol">Current
Conditions</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total
&nbsp;</td>
<td>36.9</td>
<td>33.6</td>
<td>50.8</td>
<td>9.87</td>
<td>-27.36</td>
<td>44.9</td>
<td>51.4</td>
<td>50.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Households&nbsp;</td>
<td>37.4</td>
<td>33.1</td>
<td>79.9</td>
<td>12.99</td>
<td>-25.05</td>
<td>44.0</td>
<td>49.8</td>
<td>49.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Corporations</td>
<td>36.0</td>
<td>34.4</td>
<td>50.7</td>
<td>4.65</td>
<td>-29.27</td>
<td>45.1</td>
<td>51.8</td>
<td>50.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;
Manufacturing&nbsp;</td>
<td>35.5</td>
<td>34.5</td>
<td>48.7</td>
<td>2.90</td>
<td>-27.10</td>
<td>44.6</td>
<td>50.1</td>
<td>48.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;
Non Manufacturing</td>
<td>36.2</td>
<td>34.3</td>
<td>52.7</td>
<td>5.54</td>
<td>-31.31</td>
<td>45.4</td>
<td>53.6</td>
<td>52.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol">Future
Conditions</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total
&nbsp;</td>
<td>38.2</td>
<td>39.5</td>
<td>51.3</td>
<td>-3.29</td>
<td>-25.54</td>
<td>46.9</td>
<td>52.9</td>
<td>51.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Households&nbsp;</td>
<td>38.8</td>
<td>39.6</td>
<td>51.6</td>
<td>-2.02</td>
<td>-24.81</td>
<td>46.6</td>
<td>52.5</td>
<td>50.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Corporations</td>
<td>36.1</td>
<td>38.6</td>
<td>47.9</td>
<td>-6.48</td>
<td>-24.63</td>
<td>45.8</td>
<td>51.7</td>
<td>50.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;
Manufacturing&nbsp;</td>
<td>36.8</td>
<td>39.6</td>
<td>47.2</td>
<td>-7.07</td>
<td>-22.03</td>
<td>45.2</td>
<td>50.6</td>
<td>49.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;
Non Manufacturing</td>
<td>35.2</td>
<td>37.4</td>
<td>48.6</td>
<td>-5.88</td>
<td>-27.57</td>
<td>46.4</td>
<td>52.9</td>
<td>52.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Small Business Optimism
Lowest Since 1980 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> April 8, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408h.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
According to the National Federation of Independent Business
(NFIB), small business optimism during March fell to the lowest level
since 1980. The 3.6% m/m decline to a reading of 89.6 followed a modest
1.2% February rise. The drop lowered the level of sentiment 7.3% below
the 2007 average and it was the lowest level since the short, "credit
crunch" recession of 1980.
During the last ten years there has been a 70% correlation
between the level of the NFIB index and the two quarter change in real
GDP.
Seven percent of firms indicated that credit was harder to
get. That was near the highs of the last several months and it was more
than double the percentage during 2004.
Twenty three percent fewer respondents in March expected the
economy to improve and only three percent of the respondents expected
to raise employment. That was the least since 2003. During the last ten
years there has been a 72% correlation between the NFIB employment
percentage and the y/y change in nonfarm payrolls.
Only five percent of respondents thought that now was a good
time to expand the business, the least since 1982, and expectations for
earnings fell to the lowest level since 1982.
The percentage of firms actually raising
prices rose m/m to 18% which was the highest level since July of 2007.
During the last ten years there has been a 60% correlation between the
change in the producer price index and the level of the NFIB price
index. The percentage of firms planning to raise
prices also rose to 29%, its highest since August 2006. 

About 24 million businesses exist in the United States. Small
business creates 80% of all new jobs in America.
The NFIB figures can be found in Haver's SURVEYS
database.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408j.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312">
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080408i.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312">
<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/@S7/@S7.HTM">Nat'l
Federation of Independent Business</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Small Business Optimism Index
(1986=100)</td>
<td>89.6</td>
<td>92.9</td>
<td>-7.9%</td>
<td>96.7</td>
<td>98.9</td>
<td>101.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

U.S. Chain Store Sales RiseModerate, Gas Prices Rise Strong

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

US financial market concerns shifting from growth to inflation

Economic activity is picking up in the US but remains lackluster abroad

Policy uncertainty has surged since the US national elections.

Recent turnaround in US economic surprises leading to increases in rate-cut expectations

The outlook has brightened in the US, while it has dimmed for other major economies

Headline US PCE inflation elevated by sticky services prices

US and global equity prices have recently diverged

US leading global upturn in economic surprises

Blue Chip forecasters look for further significant monetary easing apart from Japan

Recent rise in global supply chain pressures could augur a pickup in global inflation pressures

Underperforming German economy generating increased policy uncertainty relative to Europe and the US

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

250506J8.jpg

250506K8.jpg

The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services (BOP basis) in March grew to $140.5 billion after narrowing slightly to $123.2 billion in February, revised from $122.7 billion, after widening to $130.7 billion in January according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A $136.7 billion deficit was expected by the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Exports rose 0.2% (6.7% y/y) in March after increasing 2.8% in February. This was accompanied by a 4.4% rise (27.1% y/y) rise in imports which came after m/m stability in February. In Q1’25, the deficit grew to an average $131.4 billion, after rising to an average $83.3 billion in Q4’24.

The trade deficit in goods (BOP basis) widened to a record $163.2 billion in March from $147.9	 billion in February, revised from $147.0 billion. Goods exports (customs value) rose 1.4% (7.0% y/y) in March, after increasing 3.6% in February. The latest increase reflected an 8.2% (8.4% y/y) surge in auto exports which came after a 12.7% strengthening. A 3.5% (4.0% y/y) gain occurred in industrial supplies & materials exports which followed a 5.1% rise. Foods, feeds & beverage exports rose 6.6% (1.4% y/y) after declining in four of the prior five month. Working lower, capital goods exports fell 2.5% (+13.9% y/y) in March after a 4.	8% increase and nonauto consumer goods exports were off 1.1% (+3.4% y/y) in March after a 2.4% gain.

Imports of goods increased 5.5% (31.4% y/y) in March after a 0.2% February easing. Imports of nonauto consumer goods imports surged 27.9% (56.0% y/y) following a 3.1% February gain. Auto imports rose 6.6% (8.7% y/y) after a 1.2% rise. Capital goods imports rose 4.2% (22.5% y/y) following a 1.1% rise. Foods, feeds & beverage imports eased 0.4% (+11.1% y/y) following a 2.0% weakening. Industrial supplies & materials imports declined 12.4% (+39.5% y/y) after weakening 4.6% in February. Petroleum imports by end-use fell 4.1% (-10.2% y/y) after a 2.9% decline. Nonpetroleum imports increased 6.0% (34.8% y/y) after holding steady in February.

The inflation-adjusted goods trade deficit (customs value) deepened to $150.9 billion in March from $136.9 billion in February. Real exports rose 1.6% (5.3% y/y) after a 3.0% February increase, while real imports rose 5.8% (29.8% y/y) in March following a 0.5% February slip.

The services trade surplus narrowed to $23.0 billion in March after decreasing to $23.8 billion in February. It reached a peak of $25.7 billion in November of last year. Service exports fell 0.9% (+5.7% y/y) after a 0.8% decline in February. Construction services exports rose 1.0% (37.7% y/y) after increasing 2.6% in February. Travel services exports fell 7.1% (-3.7% y/y) and financial exports increased 0.9% (7.3% y/y). Transport exports rose 3.1% (2.4% y/y). Service imports eased 0.1% (+10.8% y/y) in March following a 0.8% gain. Maintenance & repair services declined 1.5% (+32.1% y/y) while imported transport services increased 1.2% (1.7% y/y). Imported travel services fell 2.2% (5.3% y/y) while charges for use of intellectual property rose 1.0% (13.6 y/y).

The U.S. goods trade deficit with China narrowed to a seasonally adjusted $24.8 billion in March from $26.6 billion in February. Exports to China declined 8.2% (-10.5% y/y) while imports weakened 7.2% (-2.7% y/y). The deficit with the European Union deepened to a record $48.3 billion in March from $30.9 billion in February. Exports rose 10.9% (14.5% y/y) while imports soared 34.0% (65.4% y/y). The deficit with Japan deepened to $5.8 billion from $5.2 billion in February. Exports rose 1.8% (8.8% y/y) and imports rose 6.4% (9.9% y/y).

The international trade data, including relevant data on oil prices, can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. Detailed figures on international trade are available in the **USINT** and **USTRADE** databases. The expectations figures are from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in **AS1REPNA**.

250506L8.jpg

250506M8.jpg

- Goods deficit grows as imports surge ahead of tariff imposition.
- Exports edge higher, led by autos.
- Petroleum product imports fall as crude oil prices decline.

U.S. Trade Deficit Deepens to Record in March

250506C2.jpg

250506D2.jpg

Retail gasoline prices for all grades improved to an average $3.27 per gallon (-13.1% y/y) in the week ended May 5 and reversed the prior week’s easing to $3.26. Prices were $3.37 per gallon to begin the month but remained above their low of $3.13 in the week of December 9. An earlier high was $3.79 in the week ending April 22, 2024. The all-time high of $5.11 occurred in the week ending June 13, 2022. The retail price for on-highway diesel fuel eaed to $3.50 per gallon (-10.2% y/y) in the week of May 5 from $3.51 in the prior week. The latest diesel price stood well below a high of $4.63 in the week ending September 18, 2023 and a peak of $5.81 in the week ending June 20, 2022.

The price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil declined to $59.64 per barrel (-26.4% y/y) in the week ended May 2, after rising to $63.09 per barrel in the prior week. Prices remained below a high of $91.45 in the week of September 29, 2023. The cost of crude oil peaked at $120.46 in the week of June 10, 2022. Yesterday, the price was $57.13 per barrel. The price of European Brent crude oil declined to $63.50 per barrel (-25.9% y/y) in the week of May 2 from $67.92 in the previous week. Prices remained well below a recent high of $95.61 in the week of September 29, 2023 and compared to a peak of $127.40 in the week of June 10, 2022.

Natural gas prices improved to an average $3.09 per mmbtu (+88.4% y/y) in the week ended May 2, after falling to $3.00/mmbtu in the prior week. Prices remained well above a low of $1.40/mmbtu in the week of March 15, 2024 but below their peak of $9.56 in the week of August 26, 2022. Yesterday’s price was $3.26/mmbtu.

Gasoline demand rose 3.2% y/y in the four weeks ending April 25 following a 0.4% y/y decline in the prior four weeks. Demand for all petroleum products improved 0.3% y/y in the four weeks ending April 25 after a 0.4% y/y rise in the previous four-week period. Crude oil input to refineries eased 0.1% y/y in the four weeks ending April 25 after a 1.3% y/y decline in the prior four weeks.

Gasoline inventories slipped 0.7% y/y in the week ending April 25 after a 1.2% y/y rise in the week ending April 18. Residual fuel oil inventories fell 18.7% y/y in the week of April 25, after a 19.0% y/y fall in the prior week. Crude oil inventories rose 1.4% y/y in the week of April 25 after a 2.6% y/y rise in the previous week.

Measured in days’ supply, gasoline inventories fell w/w to 25.5 days in the week of April 25 from 26.4 days in the prior. The recent low was 22.9 days in the week of November 8. The supply of crude oil eased w/w to 27.9 days in the week of April 25 after three weeks at 28.3 days, and remained below a high of 31.9 days in the week of March 3, 2023.

These data are reported by the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy. The price and supply/demand data can be found in Haver’s **WEEKLY** & **USENERGY** database.

- Gasoline prices edge higher.
- Crude oil prices decline.
- Natural gas costs rise.

U.S. Energy Prices Remain Mixed in Latest Week

Robert Brusca

250506E.jpg

Not many respondents are showing absolute slowing. Only five this month. Only six over the last three months on average. The median total PMI score fell to 49.7 showing contraction in April from 51.1 in March. The average fared slightly better. The 12-months to 6-months to 3-months show a moderate but consistent slowing. The breadth of slowing is wide with 60.9% of survey respondents slowing over three months compared to six months.

The percentile standings show the most strength for the BRIC group with reading above 50% (that marks the median). All other groupings have standings below the 50% mark indicating that they are below their respective medians of the last four-plus years.

Over every horizon from 12-months to 6-months to 3-months, more than 50% of the respondents show a weakening (slowing) in their PMI responses.

Among the largest economies, only Italy has a composite PMI standing above its median (above 50%).

Only 9 of 24 respondents have PMI ranked percentile standings above the 50% mark. That underlines the weakness in composite conditions and the breadth of the weakness.
 
Services sectors no longer are providing the lift to offset ongoing weakness in manufacturing. The differences among countries are narrowing.

Economic conditions across countries may be narrowing for several reasons, one being that the COVID period and then the shock reaction to Russia's invasion from Ukraine put all countries on the same timeline as central banks have been leaning against the shockwaves from those 2 events. As a result of those events, inflation flared but has more recently been falling. Still, inflation continues to be over the top of targets with the European Monetary Union right now making the most progress and Japan facing more late cycle weakness with excessive inflation than other countries in the mix. More recently aggressive tariff policy the United States has put all countries on their back foot and puts everyone on notice that the future has become a lot more uncertain. Central banks that were progressing toward rate cuts now are worried about the possibility of more inflation from tariffs or from the possibility of recession from tariffs - tariffs up the ante on uncertainty as well as on risk. What we see in this month's PMI statistics is a gradual continued erosion as the perceived risk here is that things get steadily but slowly worse as firms, investors, and consumers began to pull in their horns and prepare for something bad to happen not knowing what that might be.

250506.jpg

Global Composite PMIs Erode

Tian Yong Woon

This week, we focus on trade developments between the US and major Asian economies. Early indications coming out of US-India trade talks seem encouraging, with terms such as “forward most-favoured-nation” for the US and “zero-for-zero” tariffs appearing in news reports — terms which, if enacted, would represent a significant win for the US. India stands to benefit greatly as well if key exports to the US, such as pharmaceuticals (chart 1), receive substantial tariff relief. The benefits could be strongly mutual if a deal also grants the US greater access to India’s large auto consumer market, particularly for major US electric vehicle (EV) producers, given that EV adoption in India remains at a very early stage (chart 2).

Turning to South Korea, discussions also appear to be progressing at a healthy pace, although details remain limited and ongoing domestic political challenges continue to hinder substantive breakthroughs. Nonetheless, the South Korean won has shown signs of stabilisation, while local equity markets have remained buoyant (chart 3). Recent trade data for April has also provided some investor relief, as weak exports to the US were more than offset by a strong performance in semiconductor shipments (chart 4).

In Japan, the race to secure a trade deal with the US is well underway, with automotive exports expected to be a key focal point given their significance to Japan’s economy and the US being a major export destination (chart 5). China, however, remains a notable outlier, with formal trade talks with the US not yet underway. Still, the US-China trade relationship continues to be the most closely watched, given its scale and potential impact on global growth and trade dynamics. While markets await China’s official April trade data, early indicators such as port activity already suggest a decline in bilateral trade flows (chart 6).

**US-India trade talks**
US-India trade discussions have reportedly been progressing rapidly, with both sides having already finalized in April the terms of reference for talks, setting the stage for formal negotiations. One early sign of favourable momentum is India’s possible offering of a “forward most-favoured-nation” clause to the US. This would ensure the US always receives the most favourable tariff terms, ahead of any other trade partner. If enacted, this would be a significant win for the US and a major leap forward in the US-India trade relationship. Another reported breakthrough involves India’s reported proposal of “zero-for-zero” tariffs on steel, auto components, and pharmaceuticals—offered on a reciprocal basis up to a certain quantity. If agreed, this would be mutually beneficial, especially as pharmaceuticals remain one of the US economy’s key imports from India, as shown in chart 1. On a separate note, and more recently, India’s phone exports to the US have reportedly gained prominence. With steep US tariffs on China, firms like Apple are increasingly incentivised to accelerate production shifts to India.

250506T1.jpg

Additionally, India’s proposed “zero-for-zero” tariff plan for auto parts may galvanise US access to India’s large domestic auto market, which has remained comparatively insulated due to high import tariffs. Another area to watch in the trade talks is electric vehicle (EV) imports, especially given US EV giant Tesla’s continued interest in expanding into the Indian market. That said, EV adoption in India remains in its early stages by many measures. While India has an immense middle class with future sales potential, EVs accounted for only about 2% of new cars sold in 2023, as shown in chart 2. This is well below levels seen in other Asian economies like China, or leaders in this space like Norway, where nearly all new cars sold are EVs. Challenges remain in unlocking the domestic Indian market—particularly around affordability and the underdeveloped state of EV infrastructure.

250506T2.jpg

**US-South Korea trade talks**
Discussions on the US-South Korea trade front also appear to be progressing at a steady pace, with technical talks reportedly having concluded in Washington last week. However, details remain limited, and full-scale negotiations have not yet begun. Complicating matters is South Korea’s domestic political landscape. With the country heading into a snap presidential election on June 3, Vice Industry Minister Park has said there is no chance of a comprehensive deal being reached before then. Still, both sides have committed to working toward an agreement before the expiration of Trump’s 90-day reciprocal tariff pause on July 8. In financial markets, the won continues to swing but remains above its year-to-date lows (chart 3). Meanwhile, South Korean equities have been lifted by a softening in trade rhetoric from both the US and China, as well as optimism around the US-South Korea talks.

250506T3.jpg

Turning to the hard trade data, South Korea’s more complete April numbers offered some initial relief to investors. The economy still managed to post moderate export growth, surprising many, despite a nearly 7% y/y decline in exports to the US, as shown in chart 4. One of the key drivers was semiconductors, which recorded double-digit y/y growth for the second consecutive month. However, these figures likely do not yet reflect the full initial impact of the steep mutual tariffs between the US and China. Firmer indications may emerge in the coming months. By then, though, attention will likely have shifted toward the outcome of US trade talks with key partners, as the end of its 90-day reciprocal tariff pause draws near.

250506T4.jpg

**US-Japan trade talks**
Turning to Japan, there is a sense of cautious optimism, with Japan’s chief trade negotiator Akazawa expressing hope for a US-Japan trade deal by June, following the second and most recent round of talks held in Washington last week. A key point of interest is whether Japan can negotiate an exemption from the current 25% automotive tariffs imposed by the US. This is especially significant given the importance of the US as a destination for Japanese auto exports, as shown in chart 5, and the central role the sector plays in Japan’s broader manufacturing economy. Also worth noting is a recent clarification by Japan’s Finance Minister Kato, who walked back earlier remarks and stated that Japan will not use the sale of US Treasuries as a bargaining tool. The clarification may help defuse a potential point of friction between the two sides as trade discussions continue.

250506T5.jpg

**US-China trade developments**
Turning to US-China trade developments — while progress here has lagged, this relationship remains the most closely watched, given its potentially large impact if meaningful movement occurs. Recent messaging from both sides has softened, stepping back from the fiery exchanges and tariff escalations seen earlier in April, offering some interim relief for investors. China has reportedly exempted certain US imports from tariffs, including specific pharmaceutical and industrial chemical products. However, on US-China trade talks, they remain at a very early stage, with China merely “evaluating” the prospect of negotiations with the US. This suggests we are still far from anything resembling a formal deal. Investors are now closely watching for first-round effects of US tariffs, which are expected to appear in China’s April trade numbers due later this week. Early signs point to a slowdown. For example, vessel traffic at the Los Angeles–Long Beach port remains at range lows, hinting at reduced shipments from China.

250506T6.jpg

Asia

Economic Letter from Asia: Art of the Deal

250505N12.jpg

250505O12.jpg

The U.S. ISM Services PMI rose to 51.6 during April, after falling sharply to 50.8 in March from 53.5 in February, according to today’s report by the Institute for Supply Management. The reading indicated service sector expansion for the tenth consecutive month, although the rate of expansion has slowed significantly. The index hit a recent high of 55.8 in October of last year and remains below the all-time high of 67.5 in November 2021. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected 50.2 for April.

Haver Analytics constructs a composite index combining the services index and the manufacturing index released on Thursday. This index rose to 51.2 in Apri from 50.6 in March. The latest figure remains above its June low of 49.1.

Amongst the services component series, the employment index led last month’s improvement in the overall index. It rose to 49.0 after falling sharply to 46.2 in March. Higher employment was reported by a slightly improved 14.6% (NSA) of respondents while a lessened 16.4% reported a decline. The new orders index rose to 52.3 after falling to 50.4 in March. A higher 22.4% (NSA) of respondents reported a rise in orders while a lessened 15.3% reported a decline. Reporting slower delivery speeds, the supplier delivery series edged up to 51.3 in April after falling to 50.6 in March. Working lower, the business activity series declined to 53.7 after rising to 55.9 in March. A higher 26.2% (NSA) of respondents reported improved activity while a lessened 14.0% reported deterioration.

On the inflation front, the prices index surged to 68.9 in April after easing to 62.8 in March. A greatly increased 39.6% (NSA) of respondents reported higher prices while a lessened 1.9% reported lower prices. The index was increased from its December 2022 low 53.1 and stood at its highest level since October 2022.

Additionally, the new export orders index increased to 48.6 (NSA) in April following a decline to 45.8 in March from 52.1 in February. Just 14.8% of survey respondents reported higher exports while an increased 17.7% reported a decline. The imports index plummeted to 44.3 last month from 52.6 in March. A greatly lessened 4.7% of respondents reported higher imports while a doubled 16.2% reported a decline. The inventory change index jumped to 53.4, a six-month high. The order backlog index edged up to 48.0 in April after falling sharply to 47.4 in March. A lessened 12.2% of respondents reported higher backlogs while a fewer 16.2% reported a decline. These series are not seasonally adjusted and not included in the ISM Services PMI total.

The ISM Services PMI is a composite index consisting of four equally weighted diffusion indexes: Business Activity, New Orders, Employment, and Supplier Deliveries. A reading above 50 indicates expansion in the services sector, while below 50 suggests	 contraction. Supplier Deliveries is the only ISM index that is inversed; a reading above 50 indicates slower deliveries. The ISM figures are available in Haver's **USECON** database, with additional detail in the **SURVEYS** database. The expectations figure from Action Economics is in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250505P12.jpg

250505Q12.jpg

- Total index remains near nine-month low.
- Employment, new orders & supplier deliveries edge up. Business activity weakens. 
- Prices Index strengthens to roughly two-year high.

Economy in Brief: April 2008

Jump to:

U.S. Pending Home Sales Fell As Expected in February

JOLTS: Job Openings & Hire Rates Still in Decline

JOLTS: Job Openings & Hire Rates Still in Decline

U.S. Small Business Optimism Lowest Since 1980

Japanese Economy Watchers See Improvement In Current Conditions, But Deterioration In Future Conditions

U.S. Consumer Credit Growth Eased in February

U.S. Chain Store Sales Rise Moderate, Gas Prices Rise Strong

U.S. Chain Store Sales RiseModerate, Gas Prices Rise Strong