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/050222b.jpg" width="353">
The Conference Board&#146;s Index of Consumer Confidence slipped in February to 104.0 from an upwardly revised January level of 105.1. Consensus expectations had been for a reading of 103.3.
The index of consumer expectations fell for the second consecutive month (+4.1% y/y). The present situation index added another 3.8% to strong gains in the prior three months (+39.7% y/y).
During the last twenty years there has been a 51% correlation between consumer confidence and the y/y change in real consumer spending. The correlation rose to 66% during the last ten years.
Perceptions of the job market improved further. Jobs were viewed as hard to get by 22.6% of survey participants, the lowest percentage since May 2002.
The Conference Board&#146;s survey isconducted by a mailed questionnaire to 5,000 households and about 3,500 typically respond.
The Survey of Professional Forecasters from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia is available <a href="http://www.philadelphiafed.org/files/spf/survq105.html"> 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/@EF/@EF14/@EF1401/@EF1401.HTM">Conference Board</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>104.0</td>
<td>105.1</td>
<td>17.5%</td>
<td>96.1</td>
<td>79.8</td>
<td>96.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Conference Boards Index of Consumer Confidence slipped in February to 104.0 from an upwardly revised January level of 105.1. Consensus expectations had been for a reading of 103.3. The index of consumer expectations fell for the [...]

Consumer Confidence Slipped

<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/050222a.jpg" width="353">
The Weekly Leading Index of the US economy from the Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI) resumed an up trend after stuttering around the new year. Flat in the latest week, the index in February is up 1.2% from January and the six month growth rate improved to +1.9%, its best since early July.
Higher stock and commodity prices as well as lower interest rates offset fewer new mortgage applications in the latest week.
During the last ten years there has been a 69% correlation between the six-month growth in the ECRI leading index of the US economy and two quarter growth in real GDP.
The components of the ECRI weekly leading index are money supply plus stock &amp; bond mutual funds, the JOC-ECRI industrial materials price index, mortgage applications, bond quality spreads, stock prices, bond yields, and initial jobless insurance claims.
The ECRI Leading Index&#39;s recent pattern generally mirrors the Conference Board&#39;s Index of Leading Economic Indicators, with a slight lead. Construction of the ECRI Leading Index differs from the Conference Board Index but there has been a 70% correlation between the y/y percent change in the two series over the last 10 years.
The median lead of the ECRI index at business cycle peaks has been 10.5 months and at cycle troughs 3.0 months.
The latest from ECRI is available <a href="http://www.businesscycle.com/">here</a>.
Productivity and Inflation from Janet L. Yellen, President &amp; CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, can be found <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2005/el2005-04.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/@W8/@W801/@W801.HTM">ECRI Leading Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">02/11/05</th>
<th scope="col">02/04/05</th>
<th scope="col">Growth Rate</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Weekly</td>
<td>134.3</td>
<td>134.3</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Jan</td>
<td>Dec</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Monthly</td>
<td>132.7</td>
<td>133.2</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Weekly Leading Index of the US economy from the Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI) resumed an up trend after stuttering around the new year. Flat in the latest week, the index in February is up 1.2% from January and the six [...]

ECRI U.S. Leading Index Trending Higher

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050222a.jpg" width="353">
The Weekly Leading Index of the US economy from the Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI) resumed an up trend after stuttering around the new year. Flat in the latest week, the index in February is up 1.2% from January and the six month growth rate improved to +1.9%, its best since early July.
Higher stock and commodity prices as well as lower interest rates offset fewer new mortgage applications in the latest week.
During the last ten years there has been a 69% correlation between the six-month growth in the ECRI leading index of the US economy and two quarter growth in real GDP.
The components of the ECRI weekly leading index are money supply plus stock &amp; bond mutual funds, the JOC-ECRI industrial materials price index, mortgage applications, bond quality spreads, stock prices, bond yields, and initial jobless insurance claims.
The ECRI Leading Index&#39;s recent pattern generally mirrors the Conference Board&#39;s Index of Leading Economic Indicators, with a slight lead. Construction of the ECRI Leading Index differs from the Conference Board Index but there has been a 70% correlation between the y/y percent change in the two series over the last 10 years.
The median lead of the ECRI index at business cycle peaks has been 10.5 months and at cycle troughs 3.0 months.
The latest from ECRI is available <a href="http://www.businesscycle.com/">here</a>.
Productivity and Inflation from Janet L. Yellen, President &amp; CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, can be found <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2005/el2005-04.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/@W8/@W801/@W801.HTM">ECRI Leading Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">02/11/05</th>
<th scope="col">02/04/05</th>
<th scope="col">Growth Rate</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Weekly</td>
<td>134.3</td>
<td>134.3</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Jan</td>
<td>Dec</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Monthly</td>
<td>132.7</td>
<td>133.2</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Consumer Confidence Slipped 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> February 22, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050222b.jpg" width="353">
The Conference Board&#146;s Index of Consumer Confidence slipped in February to 104.0 from an upwardly revised January level of 105.1. Consensus expectations had been for a reading of 103.3.
The index of consumer expectations fell for the second consecutive month (+4.1% y/y). The present situation index added another 3.8% to strong gains in the prior three months (+39.7% y/y).
During the last twenty years there has been a 51% correlation between consumer confidence and the y/y change in real consumer spending. The correlation rose to 66% during the last ten years.
Perceptions of the job market improved further. Jobs were viewed as hard to get by 22.6% of survey participants, the lowest percentage since May 2002.
The Conference Board&#146;s survey isconducted by a mailed questionnaire to 5,000 households and about 3,500 typically respond.
The Survey of Professional Forecasters from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia is available <a href="http://www.philadelphiafed.org/files/spf/survq105.html"> 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/@EF/@EF14/@EF1401/@EF1401.HTM">Conference Board</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>104.0</td>
<td>105.1</td>
<td>17.5%</td>
<td>96.1</td>
<td>79.8</td>
<td>96.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Carol Stone, CBE

<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/050218e.jpg" width="353">
PPI data for Germany have shown a tendency toward stronger prices in recent months, The total PPI surged 0.8% in January, but this was mainly due to an abrupt upturn in energy, which swung from a 0.9% decline in December to a 2.8% jump in January. Excluding energy, the PPI rose 0.3%, slower than the December increase of 0.5%. (This PPI is a comprehensive measure including finished products, semi-processed items and raw materials. The US &quot;headline&quot; figure called PPI, in comparison, covers only final goods.)
The year-on-year performance of the German PPI has been firm, and January continued that trend. The total index was up 3.9%, following a 2.9% yearly increase in December. These were the largest since the middle of 2001. Energy is clearly one component of this gain. Chemicals and plastics, which are petroleum related, have also risen more rapidly.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050218d.jpg" width="353">
A third source of the increase in the German PPI is prices of metals and metal products. The dramatic increase in prices of basic metals is evident in the table and also in the second graph. Metals prices rose rapidly on world commodity markets last year. In the second graph, we show the closing spot price of copper on the London Metals Exchange; it is quoted there in US dollars and we converted that to euros. The correlation tool in Haver&#39;s DLX software indicates a substantial 85% correlation between that commodity price and the German PPI for basic metals. Further, the simple lead-lag feature of the software, implemented with the &lt;CTRL&gt; key and the right or left arrow, shows that the correlation is maximized at a 4-month lead for the commodity price. Thus, we can see in the chart that the pace of price increase in commodity markets has eased most recently, suggesting -- if this history is any guide -- the possibility for slowing during the next several months of the PPI for this very fundamental item in the production process.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/GERMANY/GERMANY.HTM">Germany: Producer Price Indexes (% chg)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 2004</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 2004</th>
<th scope="col">Year/ Year</th>
December/December
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
<td>2002</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">PPI</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>3.9</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>0.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">ex Energy</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Energy</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>-2.1</td>
<td>7.3</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>0.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Manufacturing</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>1.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Basic Metals</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>22.6</td>
<td>21.0</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>1.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Fabricated Metals</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.7</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

PPI data for Germany have shown a tendency toward stronger prices in recent months, The total PPI surged 0.8% in January, but this was mainly due to an abrupt upturn in energy, which swung from a 0.9% decline in December to a 2.8% [...]

German PPI on Firm Uptrend; Could It Slow?

<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/050218b.jpg" width="353">
The preliminary February index of consumer sentiment from the University of Michigan fell to 94.2 versus Consensus expectations for stability at 95.5. During the last ten years there has been a 74% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the y/y change in real PCE.
The decline was due to a lower reading of consumer expectations which fell 2.7% m/m on top of a 5.7% decline in January. The decline in expectations was to the lowest level since last May and due to reduced expectations for business conditions &amp; real income growth.
The reading of current conditions was stable. Sentiment regarding personal finances vs. a year ago jumped. During the last ten years there has been an 81% correlation between the current conditions index and y/y growth in payroll employment. Buying conditions for large household goods improved on strong gains in 4Q04.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050218c.jpg" width="353">
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.The mid-month survey is based on telephone interviews with 250 households nationwide on personal finances and business and buying conditions. The survey is expanded to a total of 500 interviews at month end.

<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/@EF/@EF14/@EF1402/@EF1402.HTM">University of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>94.2</td>
<td>95.5</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>95.2</td>
<td>87.6</td>
<td>89.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>110.9</td>
<td>110.9</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>97.2</td>
<td>97.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Consumer Expectations</td>
<td>83.4</td>
<td>85.7</td>
<td>-5.8%</td>
<td>88.5</td>
<td>81.4</td>
<td>84.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The preliminary February index of consumer sentiment from the University of Michigan fell to 94.2 versus Consensus expectations for stability at 95.5. During the last ten years there has been a 74% correlation between the level of [...]

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Slipped Further

<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/050218a.jpg" width="353">
The PPI for finished goods rose an expected 0.3% in January and reversed the revised 0.3% December decline. Excluding food &amp; energy, however, prices rose 0.8% and were quite a bit stronger than Consensus expectations for a 0.2% rise.
Core finished consumer goods prices jumped 0.9% (2.6% y/y) led by a 1.1% (2.6% y/y) jump in nondurable prices. Strength was highlighted by, but not limited to, a 3.1% rise in prices of tobacco products. Consumer durable prices also rose a firm 0.7% (2.8% y/y) and capital goods prices were up 0.6% (2.8% y/y) as gains in several categories offset lower computer prices.
Finished energy prices fell 1.0% (+9.9% y/y) as not seasonally adjusted gains in most prices were more than anticipated by the seasonal adjustment factors. Finished food prices fell 0.2% (+4.2% y/y).
Intermediate goods prices also rose a firm 0.4% as food prices gained 0.9% (0.4% y/y) and core intermediate prices jumped 0.8% reflecting higher fertilizer prices and renewed strength in lumber prices.
Crude prices slumped another 2.0% pulled down by a 2.5% decline in core crude prices as iron &amp; steel scrap prices fell sharply again (+23.3% y/y). During the last thirty years &quot;core&quot; crude prices have been a fair indicator of industrial sector activity with a 48% correlation between the six month change in core crude prices and the change in factory sector industrial production.

<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/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Finished Goods</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>8.7%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>8.5%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
<td>17.6%</td>
<td>25.1%</td>
<td>-10.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-2.5%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>13.1%</td>
<td>26.6%</td>
<td>12.4%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The PPI for finished goods rose an expected 0.3% in January and reversed the revised 0.3% December decline. Excluding food & energy, however, prices rose 0.8% and were quite a bit stronger than Consensus expectations for a 0.2% rise. [...]

PPI As Expected, But Core Prices Surged

<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/050218a.jpg" width="353">
The PPI for finished goods rose an expected 0.3% in January and reversed the revised 0.3% December decline. Excluding food &amp; energy, however, prices rose 0.8% and were quite a bit stronger than Consensus expectations for a 0.2% rise.
Core finished consumer goods prices jumped 0.9% (2.6% y/y) led by a 1.1% (2.6% y/y) jump in nondurable prices. Strength was highlighted by, but not limited to, a 3.1% rise in prices of tobacco products. Consumer durable prices also rose a firm 0.7% (2.8% y/y) and capital goods prices were up 0.6% (2.8% y/y) as gains in several categories offset lower computer prices.
Finished energy prices fell 1.0% (+9.9% y/y) as not seasonally adjusted gains in most prices were more than anticipated by the seasonal adjustment factors. Finished food prices fell 0.2% (+4.2% y/y).
Intermediate goods prices also rose a firm 0.4% as food prices gained 0.9% (0.4% y/y) and core intermediate prices jumped 0.8% reflecting higher fertilizer prices and renewed strength in lumber prices.
Crude prices slumped another 2.0% pulled down by a 2.5% decline in core crude prices as iron &amp; steel scrap prices fell sharply again (+23.3% y/y). During the last thirty years &quot;core&quot; crude prices have been a fair indicator of industrial sector activity with a 48% correlation between the six month change in core crude prices and the change in factory sector industrial production.

<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/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Finished Goods</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>8.7%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>8.5%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
<td>17.6%</td>
<td>25.1%</td>
<td>-10.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-2.5%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>13.1%</td>
<td>26.6%</td>
<td>12.4%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Consumer Sentiment Slipped Further 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> February 18, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050218b.jpg" width="353">
The preliminary February index of consumer sentiment from the University of Michigan fell to 94.2 versus Consensus expectations for stability at 95.5. During the last ten years there has been a 74% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the y/y change in real PCE.
The decline was due to a lower reading of consumer expectations which fell 2.7% m/m on top of a 5.7% decline in January. The decline in expectations was to the lowest level since last May and due to reduced expectations for business conditions &amp; real income growth.
The reading of current conditions was stable. Sentiment regarding personal finances vs. a year ago jumped. During the last ten years there has been an 81% correlation between the current conditions index and y/y growth in payroll employment. Buying conditions for large household goods improved on strong gains in 4Q04.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050218c.jpg" width="353">
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.The mid-month survey is based on telephone interviews with 250 households nationwide on personal finances and business and buying conditions. The survey is expanded to a total of 500 interviews at month end.

<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/@EF/@EF14/@EF1402/@EF1402.HTM">University of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>94.2</td>
<td>95.5</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>95.2</td>
<td>87.6</td>
<td>89.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>110.9</td>
<td>110.9</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>97.2</td>
<td>97.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Consumer Expectations</td>
<td>83.4</td>
<td>85.7</td>
<td>-5.8%</td>
<td>88.5</td>
<td>81.4</td>
<td>84.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050217d.jpg" width="353">
The Mexican economy had its strongest performance since 2000, shown in GDP data reported late yesterday by the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Information. Real GDP (in basic prices*) grew 1.7% in Q4, putting four-quarter growth at 4.9% and the total for 2004 at 4.4%. This was the largest increase since 6.6% in 2000.
In Q4, manufacturing and trade and tourism led the way. Manufacturing&#39;s actual growth was moderate, 0.5%, but that represented a turnaround from a decline of 0.2% in Q3. Wholesale and retail trade and restaurants and hotels together grew 4.0% in Q4, its strongest quarterly gain since Q1 2000, that is, nearly five years. Transportation and communication output rose 1.5% in the last quarter, somewhat less than Q3&#39;s 2.5%, but the four-quarter pace was a steamy 9.9%.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050217e.jpg" width="353">
In recent years, the fortunes of the Mexican economy have been heavily tied to those of the United States. NAFTA is probably a contributor to that, as the correlation of the two countries&#39; GDP trends changed toward becoming much more parallel in the early 1990s when NAFTA was enacted. In the second graph here, the linkage is illustrated by the path of exports in maquiladora industries. Receipts from tourism were also up sharply during the first three quarters of 2004. These relationships with Mexican GDP growth are not exact, but they do suggest that Mexico&#39;s economy has different and less tense reactions to exchange rates and the price of oil than other countries described here in the last few days.
Mexican data are presented in Haver&#39;s EMERGELA database. As seen in the graph, the collection includes trade through the maquiladora mechanism; employment in maquiladoras is also contained in the database.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/EMERGELA/@E6/@E602/@E602.HTM">Mexico GDP</a> (1993 New Pesos, % Change)</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 2004</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 2004</th>
<th scope="col">Year/Year</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Real GDP*</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>0.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Manufacturing</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>3.6</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>-1.3</td>
<td>-0.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Trade &amp; Tourism</td>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>7.0</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>0.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Transportation &amp; Communication</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>9.9</td>
<td>9.7</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>1.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Mexican economy had its strongest performance since 2000, shown in GDP data reported late yesterday by the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Information. Real GDP (in basic prices*) grew 1.7% in Q4, putting four- [...]

Mexican GDP for 2004 Shows Biggest Gain since 2000

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

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

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

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

PMIs show still-elevated but slowing US inflation

AI boosting US investment in data centers

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

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

US financial markets have gotten used to elevated policy uncertainty

FOMC now expects more rate cuts going forward than in June

China gaining ASEAN exports while US exports slump

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

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

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

Equity market exuberance outpacing macroeconomic data

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

US production rebounded in Q2, but demand continued to slow

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

Negative US inflation surprises leading G10 down

Deflation continues in China

Incoming data surprising on downside in US; positive surprises elsewhere

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

Service Health

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

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Featured Data Additions

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Winnie Tapasanun

251230J46.jpg

251230K46.jpg

U.S. house prices rose 0.4% m/m in October following a 0.1% dip in September (0.0% initially) and a 0.4% rise in August (unrevised), according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) House Price Index. October marked the second m/m increase in three months after no change in July. The HPI reached a record high of 436.75 in October, up 13.4% from its August 2022 low of 384.98. The year-on-year rate of increase eased to 1.7% in October from 1.8% in September—the slowest pace since March 2012—down from 4.7% in October 2024 and well below a high of 18.6% in February 2022.

House prices increased m/m in October (vs. September) across seven of the nine census divisions. Gains were led by West South Central (+1.0% vs. -1.6%), followed by New England (+0.9% vs. -0.3%), East North Central (+0.6% vs. +0.7%), Mountain (+0.6% vs. -0.8%), West North Central (+0.6% vs. +0.6%), Middle Atlantic (+0.4% vs. +0.2%), and Pacific (+0.2% vs. +0.3%). In contrast, house prices fell m/m in two census divisions in October (vs. September): East South Central (-0.4% vs. +0.7%) and South Atlantic (-0.2% vs. -0.2%).

Year-on-year house prices continued to rise in October across most regions, except West South Central and South Atlantic. The y/y pace accelerated in October (vs. September) in four of the nine census divisions: West North Central (+3.8% vs. +3.2%), New England (+3.7% vs. +3.2%), Mountain (+0.3% vs. -0.8%), and Pacific (+0.2% vs. -0.6%). Meanwhile, house price growth decelerated y/y in October (vs. September) in East South Central (+1.5% vs. +2.7%), East North Central (+5.1% vs. +5.4%), and Middle Atlantic (+5.3% vs. +5.4%). To the downside, West South Central (-0.7% vs. -1.0%) and South Atlantic (-0.5% vs. +0.4%) were the only regions posting y/y declines in October (vs. September).

The FHFA house price index is a weighted purchase-only index that measures average price changes in repeat sales of the same property. An associated quarterly index includes refinancing the same kind of properties. The indexes are based on transactions involving conforming conventional mortgages purchased or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Only mortgage transactions on single-family properties are included.

The FHFA data are available in Haver’s **USECON** database.

The minutes to the December 9–10 **FOMC** meeting can be found [here](https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20251210.pdf).

251230L46.jpg

251230M46.jpg

- FHFA HPI +0.4% m/m (+1.7% y/y) in Oct.; second m/m gain in three months.
- House prices up m/m in seven of nine census divisions but down in East South Central (-0.4%) and South Atlantic (-0.2%).
- House prices up y/y in seven of nine regions, led by Middle Atlantic (+5.3%), but down in West South Central (-0.7%) and South Atlantic (-0.5%).

U.S. FHFA House Prices Rebound in October Following September’s Easing

Robert Brusca

251230E.jpg

When inflation numbers come hot off the griddle, some part of them might stick to the pan. That's the case this month with Spain’s release of inflation in December. It provides us with the headline for the HICP measure, a headline to the domestic measure, and the domestic measure excluding energy. But it does not release the sector detail for the rest of the report.

However, based upon what's been released, it’s clear that inflation in Spain has picked up. The part of the core that we have in-hand, which is just the portion excluding energy, still appears to be fairly well behaved; however, its gain is still slightly excessive.

**HICP trend**
Spain’s HICP measure in December rose 0.4% after rising by 0.5% in both October and November; those are hot numbers. That translates into a 5.7% annual rate over three months which is hotter than its pace of 4.5% over six months which in turn is hotter than the 12-month increase of 3%. The HCP headline for Spain has clearly been accelerating, the year-over-year rise is too-hot, and the shorter-term metrics are hotter still. This is not good news, and this is not a welcome progression.

**Domestic inflation**
Looking at Spain’s domestic CPI conditions, we find that they are still on the hot side with December showing a headline gain of 0.3% but gains in October and November of 0.5% each, producing a three-month annual rate of 5.4%, which is hotter than its 4.2% over six months, which, in turn, is hotter than the year-over-year gain at 2.9%. And these patterns/results are very similar to the pattern and the readings for the HICP. The domestic inflation picture is too hot over 12 months and accelerating over the shorter periods.

**Domestic inflation ex-energy:** The CPI excluding energy is not as bloated as the HICP or the domestic headline, but it is still a reading on rough terrain. Over 12 months, inflation excluding energy rises at a 2.6% annual rate; that's above the 2% pace sought by the ECB for the community as a whole. Over six months, the reading ramps up to a 3.1% annual rate, again moving the wrong direction and a reading at 3.1% is simply too hot. Over three months, there's a slight deceleration compared to six months but still a rate that is too hot, at 2.9%, and stronger than the 12-month pace. Core inflation is better behaved than headline inflation and both the domestic and the HICP frameworks, but inflation is unruly overall and, for the most part, showing either acceleration or at least a 3-month pace stronger than its 12-month pace. None of this is what the ECB is looking for or trying to achieve.

**Beyond the missing details**
The details of the Spanish report are missing for December because the data are too preliminary for the authorities to post. However, if we look at the sequential pace of inflation over 12 months, six months, and three months on a lagged basis, it is looking at data that are up-to-date through November rather than through December what's the numbers that are generally excessive and they show too much acceleration moving from 12-months to 6-months to 3-months. Over 12 months compared to a year ago, five of nine categories show inflation accelerating. Over 6 months compared to 12 months, four categories are accelerating. Over 3 months compared to 6 months, six of the nine categories are accelerating. These acceleration tendencies are worrisome.

In addition, over 12 months, six of nine categories have a pace above 2%. Over 6 months, six of nine categories have annualized gains above 2%, and over 3 months, the lagged data show six of nine categories with gains above 2%. Only apparel shows inflation tempered on all horizons (at or below 2%). Food, housing, transport, education and other all show above 2% inflation on all horizons.

251230.jpg

**Summing up-challenging times ahead?**
Is Spain past its best inflation performance? Is the inflation worm going to begin to turn more broadly? These are trends we will need to watch. Inflation broadly has slowed or stopped its declines and largely done that in Europe as well as in the United States. Inflation is now hovering at a pace that is too strong- maybe tolerable or maybe not. Central banks need to decide and tell us what a 2% target means. Then, the question of what’s next hangs in the air. U.K. inflation remains excessive but has stepped down as the economy has begun to experience some significantly weaker economic data. Is that the future? Is it stagflation? Is it recovering from a slowdown and higher rates of interest and inflation? Or will there be continued inflation progress? Open the door on 2026…the envelope… please.

Spain

Spanish Inflation Flares at Year-End

251229A23.jpg

251229B23.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

251229C23.jpg

251229D23.jpg

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

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

251229F.jpg

251229G.jpg

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

The m/m rise in November pending home sales coincided with a decline in the average 30-year mortgage rate to 6.24% in November, the lowest since September 2024, down from 6.25% in October and 6.35% in September. These rates, while below a peak of 7.62% in October 2023, had remained higher than a low of 5.22% in August 2022 and more than double a record-low 2.68% in December 2020.

Pending home sales rose m/m in November across all four major regions. Sales in the West recovered 9.2% (2.4% y/y) in November, the first m/m increase since August, following a 1.4% decline in October. Sales in the South rose 2.4% (3.3% y/y), the fourth straight m/m rise, on top of a 2.7% October advance. Sales in the Northeast grew 1.8% (1.8% y/y), the third successive m/m increase, after a 2.3% October gain. Sales in the Midwest rose 1.3% (2.2% y/y), up for the third time in four months, after a 5.3% November rebound.

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

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

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

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

251229E.jpg

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

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

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

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

251229.jpg

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

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

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

Economy in Brief: 2005

Jump to:

Consumer Confidence Slipped

ECRI U.S. Leading Index Trending Higher

ECRI U.S. Leading Index Trending Higher

German PPI on Firm Uptrend; Could It Slow?

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Slipped Further

PPI As Expected, But Core Prices Surged

PPI As Expected, But Core Prices Surged

Mexican GDP for 2004 Shows Biggest Gain since 2000