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="298" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/0502021.gif" width="394">
Press headlines today highlight the jump in German unemployment in January, which was reported this morning by the German Federal Labor Agency: a substantial increase of 227,000 seasonally adjusted, or 5.1% on the month. Definitional changes account for much of this move and unfortunately, that has overshadowed the other news of the day, that employment also increased in its latest report, which covers November.
Some welfare recipients had previously not been included in the unemployment statistics and they were added in January. This change had been previously announced, prompting participants in various forecast surveys to project an increase of 125,000 to 150,000, seasonally adjusted. However, concern emerged, particularly among public officials, as the actual, unadjusted number of unemployed pierced the 5 million level, a post-World War II record, and the unemployment rate reached above 12%. Further regulatory changes are scheduled, though, and the reported number of unemployed will likely go higher.
This news has overshadowed a modest uptrend in the number of people employed. While not vigorous, this number has increased in every month of 2004 and in November stood 273,000 higher, or 0.7%, than its trough in December 2003. This gain represents a 39% recovery of the jobs lost in the 2-1/2-year contraction in employment from its peak in May 2001.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 2004</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 2004</th>
<th scope="col">Oct&nbsp; 2004</th>
<th scope="col">Year Ago</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">Employment (thousands) </td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>38,551</td>
<td>38,521</td>
<td>38,283</td>
<td>38,407*</td>
<td>38,316</td>
<td>38,698</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Change</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>+30K</td>
<td>+30K</td>
<td>+0.7%</td>
<td>+0.3%*</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment (thousands), SA</td>
<td>4,714</td>
<td>4,487</td>
<td>4,469</td>
<td>4,460</td>
<td>4,269</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Not Seasonally Adjusted</td>
<td>5,037</td>
<td>4,464</td>
<td>4,257</td>
<td>4,207</td>
<td>4,597</td>
<td>4,387</td>
<td>4,380</td>
<td>4,071</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate&nbsp; ( %),&nbsp; SA</td>
<td>11.4</td>
<td>10.8</td>
<td>10.8</td>
<td>10.7</td>
<td>10.2</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Not Seasonally Adjusted</td>
<td>12.1</td>
<td>10.8</td>
<td>10.3</td>
<td>10.1</td>
<td>11.0</td>
<td>10.6</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>9.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Press headlines today highlight the jump in German unemployment in January, which was reported this morning by the German Federal Labor Agency: a substantial increase of 227,000 seasonally adjusted, or 5.1% on the month. Definitional [...]

Regulatory Change Raises Unemployment in Germany, Even as Jobs Show Modest Growth

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/050202f.jpg" width="353">
As expected the Federal Open Market Committee raised the target rate for federal funds by 25 basis points to 2.50%. The discount rate also was raised 25 basis points to 3.50%.
The decision was unanimous and it was the sixth increase since last June.
Today&#39;s press release from the Fed continued to contain a comment suggesting that rates could be raised again. &quot;The Committee believes that, even after this action, the stance of monetary policy remains accommodative and, coupled with robust underlying growth in productivity, is providing ongoing support to economic activity.&quot;
For the complete text of the Fed&#39;s latest press release please click <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/monetary/2005/20050202/default.htm">here</a>.
A Neutral Fed Funds Rate from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is available <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/mt/20041201/cover.pdf">here</a>.
Comparing Forecast-Based and Backward-Looking Taylor Rules: A &quot;Global&quot; Analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can be found <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr198.html">here</a>.

</body>
</html>

As expected the Federal Open Market Committee raised the target rate for federal funds by 25 basis points to 2.50%. The discount rate also was raised 25 basis points to 3.50%. The decision was unanimous and it was the sixth increase [...]

Federal Funds Rate Raised to 2.50%

<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/050202b.jpg" width="353">
Mortgage applications recovered 7.3% last week but the average level in January remained below the December average by 1.9% according to the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) Survey.
Applications to refinance jumped 16.6% w/w and that was enough to pull the January average 8.0% ahead of December.
Purchase applications rose a slight 0.3% w/w and the January average fell 8.6% below December. During the last ten years there has been a 59% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing home sales.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage rose slightly to 5.86% versus an average 6.05% during 2004 and 5.95% in December. The effective rate on a 15-year mortgage also rose to 5.42% last week.
The Mortgage Bankers Association surveys between 20 to 35 of the top lenders in the U.S. housing industry to derive its refinance, purchase and market indexes. The weekly survey accounts for more than 40% of all applications processed each week by mortgage lenders. Visit the Mortgage Bankers Association site <a href="http://www.mbaa.org">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/@S5/@S5.HTM">MBA Mortgage Applications (3/16/90=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">01/28/05</th>
<th scope="col">01/21/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>706.4</td>
<td>658.1</td>
<td>-17.4%</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
<td>799.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>440.3</td>
<td>439.0</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
<td>354.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>2,253.9</td>
<td>1,932.8</td>
<td>-30.7%</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
<td>3,388.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Mortgage applications recovered 7.3% last week but the average level in January remained below the December average by 1.9% according to the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) Survey. Applications to refinance jumped 16.6% w/w and [...]

Mortgage Applications Recovered

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050202c.jpg" width="353">
Challenger, Gray &amp; Christmas reported that job cut announcements in January dropped 15.3% m/m to the lowest level since August.
During the last ten years there has been an 85% (inverse) correlation between the three month moving average of announced job cuts and the three month change payroll employment.
Reductions of job cut announcements were widespread across industries last month except in apparel (+86.2% y/y), computers (+167.0% y/y), electronics (+400.9% y/y), financial (-26.0% y/y), services (-0.6% y/y) and government (+81.0% y/y).
Job cut announcements differ from layoffs. Many are achieved through attrition, early retirement or just never occur.

<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/@S3/@S301/@S301.HTM">Challenger, Gray &amp; Christmas</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>
<td class="firstcol">Announced Job Cuts</td>
<td>92,351</td>
<td>109,045</td>
<td>-21.4%</td>
<td>1,039,175</td>
<td>1,236,426</td>
<td>1,431,052</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Challenger, Gray & Christmas reported that job cut announcements in January dropped 15.3% m/m to the lowest level since August. During the last ten years there has been an 85% (inverse) correlation between the three month moving [...]

Challenger Layoff Count Down

<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/050202a.jpg" width="353">
Unit sales of light vehicles in January matched Consensus expectations and gave back all of the prior month&#39;s jump with an 11.6% decline to 16.26M.
Sales of light trucks dropped 12.2% as sales of domestics skid 12.8% m/m (-4.2% y/y) and imports fell 8.2% (+1.7% y/y).
Total auto sales fell 10.9% m/m paced by a 14.6% (+6.8% y/y) drop in imports. Sales of domestic autos slid 9.5% (+1.5% y/y).
Imports&#39; share of the US market for new vehicles fell slightly to 19.9% in January, about the same as last year&#39;s average.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED09/@ED0901/@ED0901.HTM">Light Vehicle Sales (SAAR, Mil. Units)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>16.26</td>
<td>18.40</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>16.88</td>
<td>16.63</td>
<td>16.81</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Autos</td>
<td>7.39</td>
<td>8.30</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>7.49</td>
<td>7.62</td>
<td>8.07</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Trucks</td>
<td>8.87</td>
<td>10.11</td>
<td>-3.5%</td>
<td>9.39</td>
<td>9.01</td>
<td>8.74</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Unit sales of light vehicles in January matched Consensus expectations and gave back all of the prior month's jump with an 11.6% decline to 16.26M. Sales of light trucks dropped 12.2% as sales of domestics skid 12.8% m/m (-4.2% y/y) [...]

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Fell Sharply

<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/050202a.jpg" width="353">
Unit sales of light vehicles in January matched Consensus expectations and gave back all of the prior month&#39;s jump with an 11.6% decline to 16.26M.
Sales of light trucks dropped 12.2% as sales of domestics skid 12.8% m/m (-4.2% y/y) and imports fell 8.2% (+1.7% y/y).
Total auto sales fell 10.9% m/m paced by a 14.6% (+6.8% y/y) drop in imports. Sales of domestic autos slid 9.5% (+1.5% y/y).
Imports&#39; share of the US market for new vehicles fell slightly to 19.9% in January, about the same as last year&#39;s average.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED09/@ED0901/@ED0901.HTM">Light Vehicle Sales (SAAR, Mil. Units)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>16.26</td>
<td>18.40</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>16.88</td>
<td>16.63</td>
<td>16.81</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Autos</td>
<td>7.39</td>
<td>8.30</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>7.49</td>
<td>7.62</td>
<td>8.07</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Trucks</td>
<td>8.87</td>
<td>10.11</td>
<td>-3.5%</td>
<td>9.39</td>
<td>9.01</td>
<td>8.74</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Challenger Layoff Count Down 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> February 2, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050202c.jpg" width="353">
Challenger, Gray &amp; Christmas reported that job cut announcements in January dropped 15.3% m/m to the lowest level since August.
During the last ten years there has been an 85% (inverse) correlation between the three month moving average of announced job cuts and the three month change payroll employment.
Reductions of job cut announcements were widespread across industries last month except in apparel (+86.2% y/y), computers (+167.0% y/y), electronics (+400.9% y/y), financial (-26.0% y/y), services (-0.6% y/y) and government (+81.0% y/y).
Job cut announcements differ from layoffs. Many are achieved through attrition, early retirement or just never occur.

<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/@S3/@S301/@S301.HTM">Challenger, Gray &amp; Christmas</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>
<td class="firstcol">Announced Job Cuts</td>
<td>92,351</td>
<td>109,045</td>
<td>-21.4%</td>
<td>1,039,175</td>
<td>1,236,426</td>
<td>1,431,052</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Mortgage Applications Recovered 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> February 2, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050202b.jpg" width="353">
Mortgage applications recovered 7.3% last week but the average level in January remained below the December average by 1.9% according to the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) Survey.
Applications to refinance jumped 16.6% w/w and that was enough to pull the January average 8.0% ahead of December.
Purchase applications rose a slight 0.3% w/w and the January average fell 8.6% below December. During the last ten years there has been a 59% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing home sales.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage rose slightly to 5.86% versus an average 6.05% during 2004 and 5.95% in December. The effective rate on a 15-year mortgage also rose to 5.42% last week.
The Mortgage Bankers Association surveys between 20 to 35 of the top lenders in the U.S. housing industry to derive its refinance, purchase and market indexes. The weekly survey accounts for more than 40% of all applications processed each week by mortgage lenders. Visit the Mortgage Bankers Association site <a href="http://www.mbaa.org">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/@S5/@S5.HTM">MBA Mortgage Applications (3/16/90=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">01/28/05</th>
<th scope="col">01/21/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>706.4</td>
<td>658.1</td>
<td>-17.4%</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
<td>799.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>440.3</td>
<td>439.0</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
<td>354.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>2,253.9</td>
<td>1,932.8</td>
<td>-30.7%</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
<td>3,388.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Federal Funds Rate Raised to 2.50% 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> February 2, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050202f.jpg" width="353">
As expected the Federal Open Market Committee raised the target rate for federal funds by 25 basis points to 2.50%. The discount rate also was raised 25 basis points to 3.50%.
The decision was unanimous and it was the sixth increase since last June.
Today&#39;s press release from the Fed continued to contain a comment suggesting that rates could be raised again. &quot;The Committee believes that, even after this action, the stance of monetary policy remains accommodative and, coupled with robust underlying growth in productivity, is providing ongoing support to economic activity.&quot;
For the complete text of the Fed&#39;s latest press release please click <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/monetary/2005/20050202/default.htm">here</a>.
A Neutral Fed Funds Rate from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is available <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/mt/20041201/cover.pdf">here</a>.
Comparing Forecast-Based and Backward-Looking Taylor Rules: A &quot;Global&quot; Analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can be found <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr198.html">here</a>.

</body>
</html>

Louise Curley

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050202d.jpg" width="353">
While activity in the Euro Zone&#39;s and Japan&#39;s manufacturing sectors increased for the second month in January according to the purchasing managers surveyed by NTC Research, Ltd, for Reuters Group Plc., the purchasing managers indicated no special interest in increasing employment. As a result there is little likelihood that unemployment rates will be coming down soon in these areas. However, there are other factors at work, besides employment that affect the unemployment rate.
This is apparent in the comparison of unemployment rates in the Euro Zone and Japan. Although the unemployment in the Euro Zone fell to 8.8% in December from 8.9% in November, the rate of unemployment has kept within a narrow range of 8.8% to 9.0% for the past two years. Japan&#39;s unemployment rate fell to 4.4% in December from 4.5% in November. In contrast to the Euro Zone, Japan has experienced a significant decline in the unemployment rate from 5.7% in mid 2002 to 4.4% in December. The two unemployment rates are shown in the first chart.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050202e.jpg" width="353">
In Japan, employment has shown little change. With steady employment and rising unemployment, one would expect the labor force to increase but it has declined significantly as a result, largely of workers leaving the labor force. The second chart shows the rise in the numbers of Japanese workers not in the labor force. There are no comparable data for the Euro Zone, however, in contrast to Japan, employment has continue to rise as employment in the service sector has more than offset the declines in the industrial sector. With rising employment and rising unemployment, the labor force in the Euro Zone has continued to rise. This suggests that the number of workers leaving the labor force are probably on a much smaller scale than those in Japan .

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 05</th>
<th scope="col">Nov&nbsp;04</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 04</th>
<th scope="col">M/M Dif</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y &nbsp;Dif</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;2004&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;2003</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp; 2002&nbsp; &nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col"></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Euro-Zone: Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>8.9</td>
<td>8.9</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>8.9</td>
<td>8.9</td>
<td>8.5</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Japan: Unemployment Rate&nbsp;(%)&nbsp;</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>4.5</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td>5.3</td>
<td>5.4</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Japan: Not in Labor Force (millions)</td>
<td>4.30</td>
<td>4.25</td>
<td>4.20</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>2.23%</td>
<td>4.22</td>
<td>4.12</td>
<td>4.06</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<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>
<td></td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Q4 04</td>
<td>Q3 04</td>
<td>Q2 O4</td>
<td>Q3 03</td>
<td>Q4 03</td>
<td>Q3/Q3</td>
<td>Y/Y</td>
<td>2003</td>
<td>2002</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Euro-Zone: Employment (millions)</td>
<td></td>
<td>134.7</td>
<td>134.5</td>
<td>133.2</td>
<td></td>
<td>0.15</td>
<td>0.40</td>
<td>134.1</td>
<td>133.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Japan: Employment (mil)</td>
<td>63.2</td>
<td>63.8</td>
<td>63.7</td>
<td></td>
<td>64.0</td>
<td>-0.05</td>
<td>0.08</td>
<td>63.3</td>
<td>63.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

While activity in the Euro Zone's and Japan's manufacturing sectors increased for the second month in January according to the purchasing managers surveyed by NTC Research, Ltd, for Reuters Group Plc., the purchasing managers [...]

The Difference in Unemployment Rates in the Euro Zone and Japan Due Largely to Japanese Workers' Withdrawal from [...]

<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/050201c.jpg" width="353">
The total value of construction put in place surged 1.1% in December following declines in prior months that were lessened. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.6% gain.The yearend jump lifted the y/y gain in spending to 8.8%, its strongest since 1996.
Private residential building activity recovered 0.7% following two months of decline to finish the year up 13.5%, the biggest gain in ten years. New single family building only rose 0.3% in December but the year&#39;s gain of 18.9% was the series&#39; largest.
Nonresidential building jumped 1.2% and rose to the highest level since early 2002 led by a 1.3% gain in office building (+2.9% y/y) and another pop (+2.3%) in multi-retail (27.2% y/y).
Public construction jumped 1.8% and the prior month&#39;s gain was revised up sharply. Spending on highways &amp; streets, nearly one third of the value of public construction spending, surged 3.2% (9.1% y/y) for the third consecutive month of strength.Educational spending also was strong for the second month, up 1.7% (8.5% y/y).
These more detailed categories represent the Census Bureau&#146;s reclassification of construction activity into end-use groups. Finer detail is available for many of the categories; for instance, commercial construction is shown for Automotive sales and parking facilities, drugstores, building supply stores, and both commercial warehouses and mini-storage facilities. Note that start dates vary for some seasonally adjusted line items in 2000 and 2002 and that constant-dollar data are no longer computed.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E907/@E90701/@E90701.HTM">Construction Put-in-place</a></th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Nov</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>8.7%</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Private</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>8.5%</td>
<td>10.4%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Residential</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>9.5%</td>
<td>13.5%</td>
<td>13.1%</td>
<td>8.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonresidential</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>-7.1%</td>
<td>-12.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Public</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>9.4%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The total value of construction put in place surged 1.1% in December following declines in prior months that were lessened. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.6% gain.The yearend jump lifted the y/y gain in spending to 8.8%, its [...]

U.S. Construction Spending Jump Lifted Last Year's Gain To 8.8%

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

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

251230A4.jpg

251230B4.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance dropped 16,000 to 199,000 in the week ending December 27, from 215,000 in the week of December 20, revised from 214,000. The latest claims represent the third consecutive weekly decline. The four-week moving average of initial claims was 218,750 in the December 27 week, an increase of 1,750 from 217,000 in the prior week, revised from 216,750.

Federal government employees initially filed 812 (NSA) jobless insurance claims in the week ended December 20, after filing 805 claims in the week ended December 13.

Continuing claims for unemployment insurance declined 47,000 to 1.866 million in the week of December 20, from 1.913 million in the week ending December 13, revised from 1.923 million. The four-week moving average was 1.873 million in the December 20 week, a decrease of 17,750 from 1.891 million in the week ending December 13, revised from 1.894 million. The insured unemployment rate stood at 1.2% in the week of December 20, unchanged from previous week of December 13.

Federal government employees’ continuing benefits claims were 13,390 (NSA) in the week ended December 13, up from 12,887 (NSA) in the week ending December 6. 

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ending December 13, the highest unemployment rates were in Washington (2.50%), New Jersey (2.40%), Massachusetts and Minnesota (both 2.20%), and California, Illinois and Rhode Island (all 2.10%). The lowest rates were in Florida (0.30%), and Alabama and North Carolina (both 0.40%). Rates in other notable states include New York (1.80%), Pennsylvania (1.70%), and Texas (1.20%). These state data are not seasonally adjusted.

Data on weekly unemployment claims are from the Department of Labor itself, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They begin in 1967 and are contained in Haver’s **WEEKLY** database and summarized monthly in **USECON**. Data for individual states are in **REGIONW** back to December 1986.

251230C4.jpg

251230D4.jpg

- Initial claims declined from the prior week.
- Continuing claims declined from the prior week.
- The insured unemployment rate was unchanged.

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

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%).

Economy in Brief: 2005

Jump to:

Regulatory Change Raises Unemployment in Germany, Even as Jobs Show Modest Growth

Federal Funds Rate Raised to 2.50%

Mortgage Applications Recovered

Challenger Layoff Count Down

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Fell Sharply

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Fell Sharply

The Difference in Unemployment Rates in the Euro Zone and Japan Due Largely to Japanese Workers' Withdrawal from [...]

U.S. Construction Spending Jump Lifted Last Year's Gain To 8.8%