Tom Moeller

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080306c.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Factory inventories surged 1.3% in January and posted the
strongest m/m increase since early 2005. It followed an upwardly
revised 0.9% December increase. Together the gains lifted the three
month annualized rate of increase to 12.0%, up sharply from last year's
lows which were at or below 1.0% through the Summer.
Excluding the volatile transportation sector where the
aircraft industry can have an outsized effect on the total figures, the
story of accelerated inventory accumulation isn't much different.
Inventories rose the same 1.3% in January, the December rise was
revised up, and the three month rate of accumulation was 9.6%, up from
slight decumulation early last year. Inventories in the civilian
aircraft industry rose 3.7% during January and the three month rate of
gain was 51.3%.
Total factory orders fell 2.5% during January, pulled lower by
a 30.4% m/m decline in orders for civilian aircraft (+86.7% y/y). Less
that decline and less the transportation sector altogether, orders fell
a slight 0.4% after a 0.6% December gain. The three month rate of
increase at 6.9% was down from the double digit rates of increase seen
last year. January orders for durable goods fell 5.1%, about the same
as the advance report of a 5.3% decline.
Factory shipments surged 1.1%, again influenced by a strong
aircraft industry where shipments rose 11.7% (19.1% y/y). Excluding the
transportation sector shipments rose 0.8% and the three month rate of
growth of 9.2% was down by half from last year's peak rates of gain.
Overall unfilled orders rose 0.7% in January and the three
month rate of increase was a hefty 18.6%. Shipments of civilian
aircraft &amp; parts still can't keep pace with orders, therefore
backlogs rose 1.4% after a 4.0% surge in December (45.0% y/y).
Excluding the transportation sector altogether unfilled orders rose a
lesser 0.4% during January and the three month average growth rate was
a still firm 9.2% (AR).
Macroeconomic Interdependence and the International
Role of the Dollar from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
is available <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr316.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/USECON/@ED/@ED01/@ED0101/@ED01016/@ED01016.HTM">Factory
Survey</a> (NAICS, %)</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Inventories</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>6.4</td>
<td>8.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding
Transportation</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>8.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">New Orders</td>
<td>-2.5</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>7.7</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>5.1</td>
<td>11.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding
Transportation</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>5.4</td>
<td>11.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Shipments</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>10.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding
Transportation</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>11.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unfilled Orders</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>18.3</td>
<td>18.1</td>
<td>20.0</td>
<td>15.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding
Transportation</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td>9.1</td>
<td>14.1</td>
<td>8.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Pending Home Sales Unchanged
in January 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> March 6, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080306d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The National Association of Realtors reported that the January
level of pending sales of existing homes was unchanged from December.
The reading contrasted slightly with Consensus expectations for a
modest decline. The latest level also was unchanged from last year's
low reached in August.
These figures are analogous to the new home sales data from
the Commerce Dept. They measure existing home sales when the sales
contract is signed, not at the time the sale is closed.
In contrast to the stability in overall sales, pending home
sales in the Northeast continued to fall. The 4.1% m/m January decline
was the sixth in the last seven months and sales were down 40.1% from
the monthly peak early in 2005. Sales in the South also were quite weak
in January and fell 6.1% m/m, the fourth down month in a row. Sales
were off 35.5% from the 2005 peak.
Sales in the Midwest recently have shown some stability. They
rose 0.6% in January and were up 7.4% from the low last August.
Nevertheless, sales were one third lower than the 2004 peak. Out West
sales recovered in January. The 13.0% rise was first m/m gain on record
but sales were still 44.6% below the late 2005 peak.
The Realtors also indicated in an earlier report that the
number of homes on the market and available for sale rose 5.5% (18.4%
y/y) in January.
The pending home sales data are available in Haver's PREALTOR
database and the number of homes on the market are in the REALTOR
database.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Pending
Home Sales (2001=100)&nbsp;</a></th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>85.9</td>
<td>&nbsp;85.9</td>
<td>&nbsp;&nbsp; -19.6%</td>
<td>95.7</td>
<td>112.1&nbsp;</td>
<td>124.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Northeast</td>
<td>69.6</td>
<td>72.6</td>
<td>-28.0</td>
<td>85.6</td>
<td>98.5</td>
<td>108.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Midwest</td>
<td>85.2</td>
<td>84.7</td>
<td>-13.3</td>
<td>89.6</td>
<td>102.0</td>
<td>116.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; South</td>
<td>89.5</td>
<td>95.3</td>
<td>-23.8</td>
<td>107.3</td>
<td>127.3</td>
<td>134.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; West</td>
<td>93.8</td>
<td>83.0</td>
<td>-12.7</td>
<td>92.3</td>
<td>109.5</td>
<td>128.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Weekly Jobless Insurance
Claims Fell 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> March 6, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080306a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance fell 24,900 to
351,000 last week. The decline reversed all of the 21,000 increase
during the prior week which was revised to show a slightly stronger
rise. During February claims averaged 359,000 (+6.3% y/y) per week, up
9.8% from the January average.
A claims level below 400,000 typically has been associated
with growth in nonfarm payrolls. During the last ten years there has
been a (negative) 76% correlation between the level of initial claims
and the m/m change in nonfarm payroll employment.
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance continued their
recent rise. A 29,000 increase during the latest week followed a 16,000
gain during the prior period which was revised down slightly. Insured
unemployment stood at its highest level since Summer 2005. The figure
provides some indication of workers' ability to find employment.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080306b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The continuing claims numbers lag the initial claims figures
by one week.
The insured rate of unemployment remained at 2.1% for the
fifth consecutive week.
The latest Beige Book from the Federal
Reserve covering regional economic conditions can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/beigebook/2008/20080305/fullreport20080305.pdf">here</a>.
An Expanded Look at Employment from the
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is available <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/net/20080301/cover.pdf">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment
Insurance (000s)</a>&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">03/01/08</th>
<th scope="col">02/23/08</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>&nbsp;351</td>
<td>375</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>322</td>
<td>313</td>
<td>331</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>2,831</td>
<td>12.3%</td>
<td>2,551</td>
<td>2,459</td>
<td>2,662</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
German Orders Take Another
SwingLower 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> March 6, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080306e.jpg" align="left" border="0">
Manufacturing orders were a little weaker at the start of the
year than in the fourth quarter said the German ministry in a classic
understatement of the facts. It noted, however, mitigating factors,
such as a change in the tax depreciation system at the start of 2008
that caused many domestic companies to pull their orders backward into
2007. Even with that pull back December orders fell. And the 2008
growth rate as of January 2008 compared to the Q4 base sees a 7.6%
annual rate of decline in Q1 2008. Domestic orders are shrinking at a
2.4% pace. But foreign orders, an area unaffected by the depreciation
rule in Germany, sees Q1 orders are off at a 12.3% annual pace.
German orders are being compressed. German domestic orders
peaked in September 2006 and have been declining irregularly ever
since. There was an order rebound in November and December of 2007 but
the down shift is again in train.
In Germany sales trends show declines for consumer durables
and nondurables. Sales of intermediate goods have seen resurgence while
capital goods sales continue to be quite firm and have recently
re-accelerated. This is a
continuation of the same story that sees the consumer sector weak and
capital goods remaining strong. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8" scope="col"> German
Orders and Sales By Sector and Origin</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">Real and SA</td>
<td colspan="3">% M/M</td>
<td colspan="4">% Saar</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Jan-08</td>
<td>Dec-07</td>
<td>Nov-07</td>
<td>3-MO</td>
<td>6-Mo</td>
<td>12-Mo</td>
<td>YrAgo</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Orders</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.6%</td>
<td>9.6%</td>
<td>6.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Foreign</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>-2.5%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-5.9%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-3.0%</td>
<td>13.3%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Domestic</td>
<td>-1.9%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">4.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">5.8%</td>
<td>8.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="8">Sector
Sales</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">MFG/Mining</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">3.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">5.9%</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.5%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">1.1%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Cons Durables</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.6%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.4%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.5%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Cons Nondurable</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">1.5%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capital Goods</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">3.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">7.9%</td>
<td>11.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.6%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>14.1%</td>
<td>6.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">6.2%</td>
<td>9.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">All MFG Sales</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">3.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">5.6%</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Japan Economy Shows Weakening
Sectors and a Weakening Outlook 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> March 6, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080306f.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The Teikoku indices show a weakening Japan economy. Just today
Japan policymakers, commenting on the state of the economy, were saying
that it is weak and did not know if the word &#8216;recession&#8217; should be used
in connection with it. The
Teikoku index hit a five year low in January and has recovered slightly
in February. The NTC MFG index is also weak but not quite as weak as
the Teikoku MFG reading; it is not in the bottom 5 percent of its range
but in the bottom 30% of it.
The Teikoku outlook indices show that progressively greater
weakness is expected looking ahead. While each of these indexes, the
current, the 6-mo ahead and 12-mo ahead index, has fallen, each has
also made a small rebound in February. Up until now, Japan has taken a
mostly upbeat view of the economy. It took Japanese officials a long
time to downgrade the economy and its prospects. But the slide in the
economy is now undeniable. Still, like the US, we do not yet know how
far the economy will skid.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8" scope="col"> Key
Japanese Surveys</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="4">Raw readings of each survey</td>
<td colspan="3">Percent of 5Yr range*</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Feb-08</td>
<td>Jan-08</td>
<td>Dec-07</td>
<td>Nov-07</td>
<td>Feb-08</td>
<td>Jan-08</td>
<td>Dec-07</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">NTC MFG</td>
<td>50.8</td>
<td>52.4</td>
<td>52.3</td>
<td>50.8</td>
<td>30.5%</td>
<td>47.4%</td>
<td>47.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Econ
Trends (Teikoku'/50
neutral/weighted diffusion)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">MFG</td>
<td>38.5</td>
<td>37.9</td>
<td>40.8</td>
<td>41.7</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retail</td>
<td>32.6</td>
<td>31.3</td>
<td>34.2</td>
<td>34.4</td>
<td>9.4%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Wholesale</td>
<td>35.3</td>
<td>34.5</td>
<td>37.0</td>
<td>38.3</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Services</td>
<td>41.0</td>
<td>40.4</td>
<td>43.5</td>
<td>45.0</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>20.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Construction</td>
<td>29.7</td>
<td>28.9</td>
<td>32.0</td>
<td>32.6</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>16.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Factory inventories surged 1.3% in January and posted the strongest m/m increase since early 2005. It followed an upwardly revised 0.9% December increase. Together the gains lifted the three month annualized rate of increase to 12.0%, [...]

U.S. Factory Inventory Gain Strong, Orders Reverse December Rise

Robert Brusca

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080305h.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Services in the Euro Area bounced back in February but the
index still resides in the lower portion of the range it has occupied
since May of 2000. The overall index stands in its 39th
percentile, about 10 percentage points below range mid-point. Germany
and France have two of the &#8216;stronger&#8217; service sector readings with
indexes that are near or above their range midpoints at 50% and 56%
respectively. Italy finds its service sector with the worst reading
since this survey was taken. Similarly Spain and Ireland are weak in
their range in the bottom 15 percentile or worse. The UK, an EU member
country, finds its service sector in the 54th
percentile. Its reading rose in February as well.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="7" scope="col"> NTC
Services Indexes for EU/EMU</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Feb-08</td>
<td>Jan-08</td>
<td>3Mo</td>
<td>6Mo</td>
<td>12Mo</td>
<td>Percentile</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Euro-13</td>
<td>52.25</td>
<td>50.56</td>
<td>51.98</td>
<td>53.35</td>
<td>55.54</td>
<td>39.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>52.17</td>
<td>49.17</td>
<td>50.86</td>
<td>52.31</td>
<td>55.32</td>
<td>50.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>58.15</td>
<td>56.60</td>
<td>57.88</td>
<td>58.01</td>
<td>58.35</td>
<td>56.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>47.15</td>
<td>47.86</td>
<td>48.24</td>
<td>50.77</td>
<td>53.47</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Spain</td>
<td>46.13</td>
<td>44.24</td>
<td>47.12</td>
<td>49.48</td>
<td>52.42</td>
<td>11.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Ireland</td>
<td>48.27</td>
<td>51.90</td>
<td>51.23</td>
<td>52.96</td>
<td>55.19</td>
<td>14.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="7">EU
only</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">UK</td>
<td>54.05</td>
<td>52.46</td>
<td>52.96</td>
<td>53.43</td>
<td>55.41</td>
<td>54.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">percentile
is over range since May
2000</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Services in the Euro Area bounced back in February but the index still resides in the lower portion of the range it has occupied since May of 2000. The overall index stands in its 39th percentile, about 10 percentage points below [...]

EMU Services PMI Makes a Small Rebound in February

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080305g.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
January Euro Area retail sales fell 1% in volume terms. Over
three months growth has slowed marginally and is clinging in real terms
to a 1% rate of growth. The volume of spending on food has picked up in
the recent three months after negative growth rates of six and 12
months despite climbing prices. The volume of spending on nonfood items
has steadily deteriorated: 12-month to 6-month to 3-month. This is matter of concern. Three of
four EU countries depicted in the table details show sales decelerating
in the recent three-month period. I say three since I include Italy
that only offers nominal figures. Once inflation is subtracted surely
Italy with nominal sales already so weak will add to the story of
retail weakness in EMU. France shows some resilience. The UK, while
showing some slowing, also shows some growth consumer is not about to
hold growth aloft in the Euro Area. The purchase plans plotted in the
chart underscore that fact of life.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="7" scope="col"> Euro
Area 15 Retail Sales Volume</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="grey4">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Jan-08</td>
<td>Dec-07</td>
<td>Nov-07</td>
<td>3-Mo</td>
<td>6-MO</td>
<td>12-Mo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Food</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>-2.8%</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Nonfood</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Textiles</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-13.0%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">HH Goods</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>-2.7%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>-2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Books news, etc</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Pharma</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Other Nonspecialized stores</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Mail Order</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">Nonfood Country detail
(volume)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy (Total; Value)</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">UK (EU)</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>6.8%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">Shaded areas
calculated on a
one-month lag due to lagging data.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">The EA 15
countries are Austria,
Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

January Euro Area retail sales fell 1% in volume terms. Over three months growth has slowed marginally and is clinging in real terms to a 1% rate of growth. The volume of spending on food has picked up in the recent three months after [...]

Retail Sales and Spending Plans in EMU: Deceleration

<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/080305f.jpg" width="353">
Challenger, Grey &amp; Christmas reported that job cut announcements in February fell to 72,091 after 74,986 cuts during January. The average of announcements so far in 2008 is slightly below the 2007 average.
Job cut announcements rose m/m in the aerospace industry but fell in the auto industry. Layoffs in construction and computers also rose but they fell in electronics, financial and in the retail industry.
During the last ten years there has been a 76% (inverse) correlation between the three month moving average of announced job cuts and the three month change payroll employment.
Job cut announcements differ from layoffs. Many are achieved through attrition, early retirement or just never occur.
Challenger also reported that announced hiring plans were up slightly m/m but they were down sharply y/y.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S3/@S301/@S301.HTM">Challenger, Gray &amp; Christmas</a></th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Announced Job Cuts</td>
<td>72,091</td>
<td>74,986</td>
<td>-14.2%</td>
<td>768,264</td>
<td>839,822</td>
<td>1,072,054</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Challenger, Grey & Christmas reported that job cut announcements in February fell to 72,091 after 74,986 cuts during January. The average of announcements so far in 2008 is slightly below the 2007 average. Job cut announcements rose [...]

Challenger Layoffs Down Last Month

<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>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080305d.jpg" width="353">
The Business Activity Index for the non-manufacturing sector, from the Institute for Supply Management, last month improved somewhat to a reading of 50.8 from 41.9 in January. Consensus expectations had been for less of an improvement to 47.7.
Despite the rise in February, the index remained near its lowest since 2003. A level of 50 is the break even point between rising and falling activity in the service sector.
Since the series&#39; inception in 1997 there has been a 44% correlation between the level of the Business Activity Index in the non-manufacturing sector and the Q/Q change in real GDP for the services and the construction sectors. The correlation of the factory sector ISM index with the change in real GDP less just services is a higher 57%, though over the last ten years it only has been 34%.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080305e.jpg" width="353">
The new orders sub index rose m/m to a reading of 49.6 and made up a little more than half of its ten point decline during January.
Conversely, the employment sub index also rose but its 3.0 point rise to 46.9 made up less than half the January decline. That was to its lowest level since 2002. Since the series&#39; inception in 1997 there has been a 56% correlation between the level of the ISM non-manufacturing employment index and the m/m change in payroll employment in the service producing plus the construction industries.
Pricing power again eased slightly m/m for the third month, however, the level of 67.9 remained well above that of the last two years. Since inception ten years ago, there has been a 60% correlation between the price index and the q/q change in the GDP services chain price index.
ISM surveys more than 370 purchasing managers in more than 62 industries including construction, law firms, hospitals, government and retailers. The non-manufacturing survey dates back to July 1997.
The Business Activity Index for the non-manufacturing sector reflects a question separate from the subgroups mentioned above. In contrast, the ISM manufacturing sector composite index is a weighted average of five components.

<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/@EF03/@EF03.HTM">ISM Nonmanufacturing Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">February &#39;07</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Business Activity Index</td>
<td>50.8</td>
<td>41.9</td>
<td>54.9</td>
<td>56.0</td>
<td>58.0</td>
<td>60.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Index</td>
<td>67.9</td>
<td>70.7</td>
<td>53.9</td>
<td>63.8</td>
<td>65.3</td>
<td>68.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

The Business Activity Index for the non-manufacturing sector, from the Institute for Supply Management, last month improved somewhat to a reading of 50.8 from 41.9 in January. Consensus expectations had been for less of an improvement [...]

U.S. ISM Non-Manufacturing Index Somewhat Improved

<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>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080305c.jpg" width="353">
The ADP National Employment Report, from the payroll processor, indicated that private nonfarm payrolls fell 23,000 last month after a slightly revised increase of 119,000 during January.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics employment figure for February will be published Friday.Last month, the 119,000 rise in ADP&#39;s measure of private nonfarm payrolls subsequently was accompanied by a 1,000 worker increase in private sector payrolls.
According to ADP and Macro Advisers, the correlation between the monthly percentage change in the ADP estimate and that in the BLS data is 0.90.
The ADP sub-index for large payrolls fell 34,000 (-0.6% y/y) after an 8,000 worker rise during January.
Medium sized payrolls fell 4,000 (+0.9% y/y) during February after a 47,000 increase the prior month.
Growth in small payrolls eased to 15,000 (1.4% y/y), the weakest monthly increase since 2002.
Employment in the goods producing industries fell 70,000 (-1.8% y/y) while services rose 47,000 (1.5% y/y).
ADP compiled the estimate from its database of individual companies&#39; payroll information. Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, the St. Louis economic consulting firm, developed the methodology for transforming the raw data into an economic indicator.
The ADP National Employment Report data is maintained in Haver&#39;s USECON database; historical data go back to December 2000. The figures in this report cover only private sector jobs and exclude employment in the public sector, which rose an average 11,083 during the last twelve months. 
The full ADP National Employment Report can be found <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/FINAL_Report_FEB_08.pdf">here</a>, and the ADP methodology is explained <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/ADPNERMethodology.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/USECON/@EB/@EB25/@EB25.HTM">LAXEPA@USECON</a></th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Nonfarm Private Payroll Employment (m/m Chg.)</td>
<td>-23,000</td>
<td>119,000</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

The ADP National Employment Report, from the payroll processor, indicated that private nonfarm payrolls fell 23,000 last month after a slightly revised increase of 119,000 during January.

ADP Report: Private Payrolls Fell

<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>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080305a.jpg" width="353">
Nonfarm labor productivity growth during 4Q07 was revised little, to 1.9% growth from 1.8% reported initially. The figure still is a marked slowdown from the 3Q figure of 6.3% during 3Q07 which was revised up slightly. Consensus expectations had been for no revision to 4Q growth.
Growth in output last quarter was little changed at 0.3% and still down sharply from 5.6% during 3Q. A 1.6% decline in hours worked is what pulled productivity up and it was the sharpest q/q decline since 2001.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080305b.jpg" width="353">
Compensation per hour last quarter was revised up to a 4.6% growth rate. Compensation growth for the year accelerated to a 4.9% rate of growth which was the quickest since 2000.
The upward revision to compensation raised the estimate of unit labor cost growth to 2.6% from 2.1%, and from the revised 3Q decline of 2.7%. The Consensus expectation had been for unit cost growth to be left unchanged at 2.1%. The 4Q rise was again enough to lift the gain in labor costs for the full year by 3.1%, the quickest since 2000.
Productivity in the factory sector eased to a little revised 2.3% rate of growth from 4.1% during 3Q. For all of 2007 factory sector productivity rose 3.7% versus 4.3% during 2006. Unit labor costs rose 2.1% after declines during the prior two quarters. For the full year unit labor costs in the factory sector rose 1.6% after two years of negative growth.
Condition of the U.S. Banking System is yesterday&#39;s Senate testimony by Fed Vice ChairmanDonald L. Kohn and it can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/kohn20080304a.htm"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EC/@EC02/@EC02.HTM">Non-farm Business Sector</a> (SAAR, %)</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 &#39;07 (Revised)</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 &#39;07</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 &#39;07</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Output per Hour</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>6.3</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Compensation per Hour</td>
<td>4.6</td>
<td>3.9</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.9</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>3.9</td>
<td>4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unit Labor Costs</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>2.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Nonfarm labor productivity growth during 4Q07 was revised little, to 1.9% growth from 1.8% reported initially. The figure still is a marked slowdown from the 3Q figure of 6.3% during 3Q07 which was revised up slightly. Consensus [...]

U.S. Productivity Growth Revised Little, Unit Labor Costs Revised Up

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080305a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Nonfarm labor productivity growth during
4Q07 was revised little, to 1.9% growth from 1.8% reported initially.
The figure still is a marked slowdown from the 3Q figure of 6.3% during
3Q07 which was revised up slightly. Consensus expectations
had been for no revision to 4Q growth.
Growth in output last quarter was little changed at 0.3% and
still down sharply from 5.6% during 3Q. A 1.6% decline in hours worked
is what pulled productivity up and it was the sharpest q/q decline
since 2001.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080305b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Compensation per hour last quarter was
revised up to a 4.6% growth rate. Compensation growth for the year
accelerated to a 4.9% rate of growth which was the quickest since 2000.
The upward revision to compensation raised the estimate of unit
labor cost growth to 2.6% from 2.1%, and from the revised 3Q
decline of 2.7%. The Consensus expectation had been for unit cost
growth to be left unchanged at 2.1%. The 4Q rise was again enough to
lift the gain in labor costs for the full year by 3.1%, the quickest
since 2000.
Productivity in the factory sector eased
to a little revised 2.3% rate of growth from 4.1% during 3Q. For all of
2007 factory sector productivity rose 3.7% versus 4.3% during 2006.
Unit labor costs rose 2.1% after declines during the prior two
quarters. For the full year unit labor costs in the factory sector rose
1.6% after two years of negative growth.


Condition of the U.S. Banking System is
yesterday's Senate testimony by Fed Vice ChairmanDonald L. Kohn and it
can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/kohn20080304a.htm">
here</a>.
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EC/@EC02/@EC02.HTM">Non-farm
Business Sector</a> (SAAR, %)</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 '07 (Revised)</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 '07</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 '07</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Output per Hour</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>6.3</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Compensation per Hour</td>
<td>4.6</td>
<td>3.9</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.9</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>3.9</td>
<td>4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unit Labor Costs</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>2.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
ADP Report: Private Payrolls Fell 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> March 5, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080305c.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The ADP National Employment Report, from the payroll
processor, indicated that private nonfarm payrolls fell 23,000 last
month after a slightly revised increase of 119,000 during January.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics employment figure for
February will be published Friday.Last
month, the 119,000 rise in ADP's measure of private nonfarm payrolls
subsequently was accompanied by a 1,000 worker increase in private
sector payrolls.

According to ADP and Macro Advisers, the correlation between
the monthly percentage change in the ADP estimate and that in the BLS
data is 0.90.


The ADP sub-index for large payrolls fell 34,000 (-0.6% y/y)
after an 8,000 worker rise during January.


Medium sized payrolls fell 4,000 (+0.9% y/y) during February
after a 47,000 increase the prior month.Growth in small payrolls eased to 15,000 (1.4% y/y), the
weakest monthly increase since 2002.


Employment in the goods producing industries fell 70,000
(-1.8% y/y) while services rose 47,000 (1.5% y/y).


ADP compiled the estimate from its database of individual
companies' payroll information. Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, the St.
Louis economic consulting firm, developed the methodology for
transforming the raw data into an economic indicator.


The ADP National Employment Report data is maintained in
Haver's USECON database; historical data
go back to December 2000. The figures in this report cover only private
sector jobs and exclude employment in the public sector, which rose an
average 11,083 during the last twelve months. 

The full ADP National Employment Report can be found <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/FINAL_Report_FEB_08.pdf">here</a>,
and the ADP methodology is explained <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/ADPNERMethodology.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/USECON/@EB/@EB25/@EB25.HTM">LAXEPA@USECON</a></th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Nonfarm Private Payroll
Employment (m/m Chg.)</td>
<td>-23,000</td>
<td>119,000</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Challenger Layoffs Down Last Month 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> March 5, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080305f.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Challenger, Grey &amp; Christmas reported that job cut
announcements in February fell to 72,091 after 74,986 cuts during
January. The average of announcements so far in 2008 is slightly below
the 2007 average.
Job cut announcements rose m/m in the aerospace industry but
fell in the auto industry. Layoffs in construction and computers also
rose but they fell in electronics, financial and in the retail industry.
During the last ten years there has been a 76% (inverse)
correlation between the three month moving average of announced job
cuts and the three month change payroll employment.
Job cut announcements differ from layoffs. Many are achieved
through attrition, early retirement or just never occur.
Challenger also reported that announced hiring plans were up
slightly m/m but they were down sharply y/y.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S3/@S301/@S301.HTM">Challenger,
Gray &amp; Christmas</a></th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Announced Job Cuts</td>
<td>72,091</td>
<td>74,986</td>
<td>-14.2%</td>
<td>768,264</td>
<td>839,822</td>
<td>1,072,054</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. ISM Non-Manufacturing Index
Somewhat Improved 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> March 5, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080305d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The Business Activity Index for the non-manufacturing sector,
from the Institute for Supply Management, last month improved somewhat
to a reading of 50.8 from 41.9 in January. Consensus expectations had
been for less of an improvement to 47.7.
Despite the rise in February, the index remained near its
lowest since 2003. A level of 50 is the break even point between rising
and falling activity in the service sector.
Since the series' inception in 1997 there has been a 44%
correlation between the level of the Business Activity Index in the
non-manufacturing sector and the Q/Q change in real GDP for the
services and the construction sectors. The correlation of the factory
sector ISM index with the change in real GDP less just services is a
higher 57%, though over the last ten years it only has been 34%.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080305e.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The new orders sub index rose m/m to a reading of 49.6 and
made up a little more than half of its ten point decline during January.
Conversely, the employment sub index also rose but its 3.0
point rise to 46.9 made up less than half the January decline. That was
to its lowest level since 2002. Since the series' inception in 1997
there has been a 56% correlation between the level of the ISM
non-manufacturing employment index and the m/m change in payroll
employment in the service producing plus the construction industries.
Pricing power again eased slightly m/m for the third month,
however, the level of 67.9 remained well above that of the last two
years. Since inception ten years ago, there has been a 60% correlation
between the price index and the q/q change in the GDP services chain
price index.
ISM surveys more than 370 purchasing managers in more than 62
industries including construction, law firms, hospitals, government and
retailers. The non-manufacturing survey dates back to July 1997.
The Business Activity Index for the non-manufacturing
sector reflects a question separate from the subgroups mentioned above.
In contrast, the ISM manufacturing sector composite index is a weighted
average of five components.

<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/@EF03/@EF03.HTM">ISM
Nonmanufacturing Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">February '07</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Business Activity Index</td>
<td>50.8</td>
<td>41.9</td>
<td>54.9</td>
<td>56.0</td>
<td>58.0</td>
<td>60.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Index</td>
<td>67.9</td>
<td>70.7</td>
<td>53.9</td>
<td>63.8</td>
<td>65.3</td>
<td>68.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Retail Sales and Spending Plans
inEMU: Deceleration 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> March 5, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080305g.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
January Euro Area retail sales fell 1% in volume terms. Over
three months growth has slowed marginally and is clinging in real terms
to a 1% rate of growth. The volume of spending on food has picked up in
the recent three months after negative growth rates of six and 12
months despite climbing prices. The volume of spending on nonfood items
has steadily deteriorated: 12-month to 6-month to 3-month. This is matter of concern. Three of
four EU countries depicted in the table details show sales decelerating
in the recent three-month period. I say three since I include Italy
that only offers nominal figures. Once inflation is subtracted surely
Italy with nominal sales already so weak will add to the story of
retail weakness in EMU. France shows some resilience. The UK, while
showing some slowing, also shows some growth consumer is not about to
hold growth aloft in the Euro Area. The purchase plans plotted in the
chart underscore that fact of life.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="7" scope="col"> Euro
Area 15 Retail Sales Volume</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="grey4">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Jan-08</td>
<td>Dec-07</td>
<td>Nov-07</td>
<td>3-Mo</td>
<td>6-MO</td>
<td>12-Mo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Food</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>-2.8%</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Nonfood</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Textiles</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-13.0%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">HH Goods</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>-2.7%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>-2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Books news, etc</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Pharma</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Other Nonspecialized stores</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Mail Order</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">Nonfood
Country detail
(volume)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy (Total; Value)</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">UK (EU)</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>6.8%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">Shaded areas
calculated on a
one-month lag due to lagging data.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">The EA 15
countries are Austria,
Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
EMU Services PMI Makes a Small
Rebound in February 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> March 5, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080305h.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Services in the Euro Area bounced back in February but the
index still resides in the lower portion of the range it has occupied
since May of 2000. The overall index stands in its 39th
percentile, about 10 percentage points below range mid-point. Germany
and France have two of the &#8216;stronger&#8217; service sector readings with
indexes that are near or above their range midpoints at 50% and 56%
respectively. Italy finds its service sector with the worst reading
since this survey was taken. Similarly Spain and Ireland are weak in
their range in the bottom 15 percentile or worse. The UK, an EU member
country, finds its service sector in the 54th
percentile. Its reading rose in February as well.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="7" scope="col"> NTC
Services Indexes for EU/EMU</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Feb-08</td>
<td>Jan-08</td>
<td>3Mo</td>
<td>6Mo</td>
<td>12Mo</td>
<td>Percentile</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Euro-13</td>
<td>52.25</td>
<td>50.56</td>
<td>51.98</td>
<td>53.35</td>
<td>55.54</td>
<td>39.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>52.17</td>
<td>49.17</td>
<td>50.86</td>
<td>52.31</td>
<td>55.32</td>
<td>50.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>58.15</td>
<td>56.60</td>
<td>57.88</td>
<td>58.01</td>
<td>58.35</td>
<td>56.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>47.15</td>
<td>47.86</td>
<td>48.24</td>
<td>50.77</td>
<td>53.47</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Spain</td>
<td>46.13</td>
<td>44.24</td>
<td>47.12</td>
<td>49.48</td>
<td>52.42</td>
<td>11.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Ireland</td>
<td>48.27</td>
<td>51.90</td>
<td>51.23</td>
<td>52.96</td>
<td>55.19</td>
<td>14.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="7">EU
only</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">UK</td>
<td>54.05</td>
<td>52.46</td>
<td>52.96</td>
<td>53.43</td>
<td>55.41</td>
<td>54.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">percentile
is over range since May
2000</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

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

FOMC expects more inflation and less growth than in March

With escalation of Israel/Iran conflict, geopolitical risk has recently surged while US trade policy uncertainty has ebbed

Renewed supply chain pressures point to a rebound in global inflation ahead

Apart from Japan, Blue Chip forecasters look for further significant monetary policy easing

Apart from the US, productivity is moribund

Financial market concerns ebb even though policy uncertainty continues to soar

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

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

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

251111T5.jpg

251111U5.jpg

The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index eased 0.6% (+4.8%) to 98.2 in October after falling 2.0% to a 98.8 in September and rising 0.5% to 100.8 in August, according to the Small Business Economic Trends survey conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business. Four of the ten index components increased last month while five fell and one was unchanged. The NFIB Small Business Uncertainty Index fell 12.0% (-20.0% y/y) last month to 88 after rising 7.5% in September.

The outlook for business conditions was mixed in the latest survey. The net balance of respondents planning to add to inventories declined to a six-month low of -2% from +1% in September. The net percent expecting the economy to improve fell to 20% last month after weakening to 23% in September. A lessened 6% expected higher real sales in six months, compared to 8% in September. A lessened 15% of respondents indicated that now was a good time to increase employment compared to 16% in September. Earnings trends deteriorated sharply.

Offsetting these declines, plans to make capital outlays rose to a ten-month high of 23% of firms after steadying at 21%. The index of expected credit conditions jumped to -3% from -7%. It remained up from a low of -11 in November 2023. A modestly increased 13% of respondents felt that now was a good time to expand. Inventories were assessed as being too low by a lessened 4% of respondents after 7% in September.

On the labor front, 49% of businesses reported few or no qualified workers to fill job openings in October, down slightly from 50% in September. That remained up, however, from a low of 43% in August. These readings remained below a high of 56% in August of 2024.

251111V5.jpg

251111W5.jpg

251111X5.jpg

The net percent raising their average selling prices fell to 21% last month compared to 24% in September. It had grown to 32% in February. The percentage planning to raise prices eased to 30% in October, down from a 32% high in June. Worker compensation deteriorated as a net 26% of respondents lifted compensation during the last three months versus 31% in the last survey. Compensation gains peaked at 50% of firms in January 2022. A steady net 19% of firms are making plans to raise worker compensation in the next three months, below the November 2024 high of 28%.

The quality of labor was reported by 27% of member firms as the single most important issue facing small businesses. That was increased from 18% in September, and the highest in five years. Moving lower, the cost of labor was ranked by 8% of respondents as the largest problem, compared to 11% in September, while financial & interest rates worries dropped to 2%, the lowest in two years. A lessened 12% cited inflation as the most important problem. Other major concerns were taxes (16%) and poor sales (10%). 

According to the Small Business Administration, there are 33 million small businesses in the United States, which employ 62 million workers. The NFIB surveys anywhere from 500 to 2000 respondents each month and the typical firm employs 10 people and reports gross sales of about $500,000 a year. The NFIB figures can be found in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database.

- Inventory, economy & employment concerns weigh on optimism.
- Percentage of respondents raising prices moves down; price expectations ease.
- Concerns about quality of labor surge but labor cost worries recede.

U.S. NFIB Small Business Optimism Index Slips in October

251111E.jpg

Macroeconomic expectations in the ZEW survey backtracked slightly in Germany while improving slightly in the United States in November. The economic situation improved slightly in the euro area and Germany while backtracking in the United States. That's the assessments of the current economic situation and expectations for Germany or the EMU that are moving in different directions in the U.S. and in Germany or in the U.S. vs. the European Monetary Union in November.

Inflation expectations backed off across the board easing slightly in the euro area, Germany, and also in the United States. While that happened, expectations for short-term interest rates became less focused on rate cuts in the euro area and slightly less tilted toward the expectation for rate cuts in the U.S. as well. Long-term rate expectations receded somewhat in both Germany and in the U.S. in November by small amounts. Stock market expectations picked up in the euro area, Germany, and the U.S., and in most cases, somewhat significantly.

**The queue standings**
The queue standings are ranked standings of these various metrics, and they tell a clear story of how the ZEW experts see current conditions and policy tradeoffs. The euro area has an economic situation where the queue standing is at its 51st percentile, slightly above its historic median (on data since the early 1990s). However, Germany and the U.S. have very weak percentile standings with Germany in its 14.5 percentile and the U.S. in its 35th percentile. Macroeconomic expectations, however, find Germany at a solid 63.6 percentile while the U.S. is at a 23.3 percentile. ZEW experts are far more upbeat on prospects for German recovery right now than in the United States – and that seems odd to me with a lot of fiscal stimulus in train in the U.S. and tons of ‘AI’ investment.

Inflation expectations are high in the U.S. at an 85.5 percentile standing, well above the historic median, and clearly showing threatening conditions. This compares to a 30% queue standing for the euro area and Germany.

Short-term rate expectations are significantly below the median for both the euro area and the U.S. with the euro area at a 26.8 percentile and the U.S. at a 9.3 percentile standing. Long-term rate expectations have Germany at a 43-percentile and the U.S. at a more similar 35-percentile. Stock market expectations are fairly similar across the lot with the euro area at a 38-percentile standing, Germany at a 35-percentile standing and the U.S. at a 38-percentile standing.

251111.jpg

**Summing up**
These metrics remind us that ZEW experts see different inflation circumstances in the U.S. compared to Europe as well as very different current economic situations, especially between the U.S. and the euro area and very different macroeconomic expectations between the U.S. and Germany. The U.S. is seen more as a place that's percolating inflation despite the fact that the Federal Reserve continues to say inflation is under control and inflation expectations are well anchored. Apparently, they are not well-anchored among the ZEW financial experts. We might add, nor are they well-anchored among participants in the University of Michigan survey, or for respondents to the NFIB survey that was just released. Maybe it's the Fed that is not very well anchored to reality when it comes to inflation expectations assessments?

ZEW Expectations Weaken Mildly

251110A0.jpg

251110B0.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose 9,379 during the week ended November 1 to 228,899 (3.4% y/y) and mostly reversed the prior week’s 12,643 decline to 219,520. The four-week moving average of initial claims eased to 225,213 from 226,766. The four-week average hit a low of 200,323 in January 2024.

Federal government employees filed 7,482 initial jobless insurance claims last week after 9,435 in the prior week. These figures are increased from 588 at the end of September.

Continuing claims for unemployment insurance rose to 1.964 million (4.4% y/y) in the week ended October 25 from 1.957 million in the prior week. The four-week moving average rose to 1.949 million from 1.940 million. It was the highest level since the last week of August.

Federal government employees continuing benefits rose to 30,649 in the week ended October 25 from 23,188 in the prior week. These figures are increased from 8,676 at the end of September.

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.

- Increase in initial claims reverses most of earlier decline.
- Continuing claims continue to increase.

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

251110E.jpg

Industrial production for the European Monetary Union (EMU) is not yet available for the union as a whole; however, a number of European countries have reported production, and they give us a good sense of what's happening. In September, among the 13 European countries that reported in the table, all but four of them showed increases in industrial production. Declines were posted in Ireland where production fell by 9.4% in one month, Luxembourg where it fell by 6.1%, Malta where it fell by 1.7%, and in Finland where it fell by 0.4%. In the remaining nine countries, production increased. The median increase for monetary union members in the table was a rise of 0.8% month-to-month. 45.5% of the reporters in the monetary union showed production acceleration.

In August, there were 5 European members with production decreasing. Among European Monetary Union members, the median was a decline of 0.5% with 46.2% of the reporters showing output accelerating on the month. July had been a much worse month with 8 reporting European countries showing declines and with the monetary union median showing a decline of 0.3% and only 38.5% of the reporting EMU members showing output accelerating month-to-month.

There has been gradual moderate improvement in these monthly statistics both in terms of improvement in the median and improvement in the breadth as output has accelerated, with a step back in August.

Looking at the sequential data that compare three-month results to six-month results to 12-month results, we see a median annualized increase of 2.9% for output across monetary union members over three months; that's up from 0.8% over six months and compares to a 2.1% increase for monetary union members over twelve months. The breadth of increase over the period is above 50% on all the horizons and it's fairly steady over three months and six months at about a 54-percentile standing.

September data conclude the results for the third quarter. In this quarter-to-date calculation, 6 of the 13 reporters in the table shows output declining in the third quarter. Monetary Union members generate a median increase of 0.3% in terms of annualized quarter-to-quarter industrial output changes. The pattern and the monthly data seem to be slightly stronger than what we see in the quarter-to-date.

The final column of the table presents the queue standings that calculate the positioning of the year-over-year growth rates across country-reporters among growth rates back to late-2007. Ranked among this cluster of growth rates, only five of the current year-over-year rates stand at levels that are below their median growth rate for the period. Countries with below median growth rates (below a standing of 50%) for industrial production growth are Austria, Germany, Finland, Luxembourg, and Malta. Among these, only one belongs to the four largest economies in the monetary union—Germany, which is also the largest of them. Germany has the standing only its 39th percentile. The unweighted median ranking for the group of monetary union economies is at 57.3%, above the 50% mark and therefore above the historic median.

The industrial production data for the monetary union in September is somewhat encouraging but certainly not crystal clear. There continues to be a lot of weaknesses displayed in the data. While the aggregate ranking is above its historic median, it's not above it by very much and clearly the growth rates are still relatively weak. There still is not a clear trend of acceleration in the group. However, what's lacking in the data is any sign of real deterioration. There clearly is weakness across countries but not a sense of deterioration. The best news in the report may be that there's not any really bad news.

251110.jpg

Europe

Production in a Gradual Recovery in Europe Despite Recent Setbacks

Tian Yong Woon

This week, we review key developments across several Asian economies as the year nears its close. On balance, many of investors’ and policymakers’ worst fears did not materialize. Despite US tariffs, regional exports have shown resilience (chart 1), partly supported by stronger intra-Asia trade, even as exports to the US declined in some cases.

In China, factors including importer front-loading, stronger exports to non-US markets, and government efforts to boost consumption—albeit with potentially one-off effects—have kept the economy on track to meet its 5% growth target this year (chart 2), barring a substantial slowdown in Q4. In Japan, political uncertainty has eased following Prime Minister Takaichi’s rise, though her pro-growth, pro-loose monetary stance has contributed to further yen weakness (chart 3). India, while still likely Asia’s fastest-growing major economy this year, has seen trade setbacks (chart 4) as US–India discussions continue, though recent progress suggests a deal may be near.

However, not all developments in Asia have avoided worst-case outcomes. For example, the Philippines, which has already been hit by a string of storms this year, continues to reel from the effects of Typhoons Fung-wong and Kalmaegi. These storms have highlighted corruption in the Philippines’ flood control systems, rattling investors and pressuring the peso (chart 5), in a manner reminiscent of the rupiah’s decline during Indonesia’s political turmoil earlier this year. In Thailand, political uncertainty continues ahead of general elections eyed at next March, while the expected full return of Chinese tourists has yet to materialize (chart 6).

**Trade in Asia**
For Asia, the year has ultimately not played out as bleakly as investors once feared, particularly on the trade front. Despite US President Trump’s tariffs and a persistent backdrop of uncertainty, export performance in several Asian economies has proven more resilient than expected. This is most clearly reflected in export growth readings for China and key Southeast Asian economies (chart 1), which have remained firm—and at times exceeded expectations—even as China’s shipments to the US fell sharply. Much of this resilience reflects a redirection of exports toward other markets, often within the region. India, however, has seen more limited gains, with exports in US dollar terms struggling to materially surpass last year’s levels.

251110T1.jpg

**China**
Among the main investor concerns earlier this year was China, which once again came under close scrutiny as President Trump sought to address issues ranging from the large US–China trade imbalance to intensifying AI competition and perceived overcapacity. Yet China’s growth—particularly on the export front—has proven more resilient than expected, with increased shipments to other markets more than offsetting reduced trade with the US. Earlier front-loading by importers ahead of anticipated tariff hikes also temporarily supported export figures. Domestically, government initiatives to stimulate consumption led to a brief lift in retail spending, though signs suggest these effects may be fading, indicating their largely one-off nature. Even so, China has maintained year-to-date growth above its 5% annual target (chart 2), keeping that goal within reach provided momentum does not weaken significantly in Q4. Meanwhile, the more conciliatory tone in recent US–China discussions, including the halving of US fentanyl-related tariffs, offers a modest further relief. That said, longer-term structural issues still loom, including the difficult shift toward a more consumption-led economy, demographic pressures, and questions around sustained overcapacity in key industries.

251110T2.jpg

**Japan**
In Japan, the political uncertainty that followed the Liberal Democratic Party’s weak election performances earlier in the year has largely eased with Takaichi’s appointment as the country’s first female Prime Minister. Attention now turns to her supplementary budget—reported to be around $65 billion—which aims to address the rising cost of living while also bolstering defence and diplomatic capabilities. Investors, however, are already contemplating the policy implications. In particular, expectations that Takaichi’s agenda could make it harder for the Bank of Japan to pursue further significant tightening have added renewed pressure on the yen, pushing it to multi-year lows (chart 3). And while a weaker yen could, in theory, support tourism, forthcoming measures to curb overtourism—such as Kyoto’s planned 900% increase in accommodation taxes—may act as offsetting factors.

251110T3.jpg

**India**
Turning to India, the economy remains on track to be the region’s fastest-growing major economy. Growth forecasts were downgraded earlier in the year by the IMF and Blue Chip survey panellists, but these revisions were later reversed. These early-year downgrades reflected India’s heavy exposure to US trade, a concern that materialized when the US raised its reciprocal tariff rate on India from 25% to 50%. This contrasts with the situation of many other Asian economies, who successfully negotiated lower rates below the “Liberation Day” baseline. Although India managed to expand exports to other trading partners, this gain resulted in only a muted net impact on overall exports and, in turn, GDP growth. That said, US–India discussions have made some progress over the year, particularly on previously contentious issues such as India’s purchases of Russian crude. While these developments bring India closer to a potential trade deal, the benefits are likely to materialize beyond this year, meaning current growth readings still largely reflect the impact of the steep US tariffs in place today.

251110T4.jpg

**The Philippines**
Moving to the Philippines, the country is grappling with the impact of Typhoon Fung-wong, which struck the northern regions on Sunday, forcing over a million people to evacuate and causing widespread landslides and damaged roads. Fung-wong follows a string of storms this year, including Typhoon Kalmaegi, which also inflicted substantial damage just a few days ago. The disasters have reignited concerns over longstanding corruption in the country’s flood control systems, spooking investors and prompting capital outflows, which have weighed on the Philippine peso (chart 5). The currency’s weakness has been compounded by the central bank’s ongoing easing, which has cut the policy rate from last year’s peak of 6.5% to 4.75%—nearly 200 basis points—and with markets still pricing in further cuts.

251110T5.jpg

**Thailand**
Lastly, Thailand’s economy continues to struggle to regain the footing it had before the pandemic, weighed down by both domestic and external factors. Politically, the country remains in a transitional phase, with new Prime Minister Anutin under scrutiny to deliver on his pledge to hold general elections soon. Deputy Prime Minister indications suggest March 29, 2026 as a likely date, leaving a period of uncertainty in the meantime, as the durability of policies enacted during this interim phase remains unclear. Externally, tourism—which should have been a key growth driver—has underperformed, as the return of Chinese visitors to pre-pandemic levels did not materialize, partly due to tourism-related scares. In contrast, Vietnam appears to have captured a larger share of Chinese tourists this year (chart 6).

Economy in Brief: 2008

Jump to:

U.S. Factory Inventory Gain Strong, Orders Reverse December Rise

EMU Services PMI Makes a Small Rebound in February

Retail Sales and Spending Plans in EMU: Deceleration

Challenger Layoffs Down Last Month

U.S. ISM Non-Manufacturing Index Somewhat Improved

ADP Report: Private Payrolls Fell

U.S. Productivity Growth Revised Little, Unit Labor Costs Revised Up

U.S. Productivity Growth Revised Little, Unit Labor Costs Revised Up