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/090401g.jpg" width="353">
The National Association of Realtors indicated that pending sales of existing homes during February edged up 2.1% after the sharp 7.7% decline during January. The decline left sales so far this year 6.4% below the 2008 average after last year&#39;s 9.5% decline. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.5% February slip.
The home sales figures are analogous to the new home sales data from the Commerce Department in that they measure existing home sales when the sales contract is signed, not at the time the sale is closed. The series dates back to 2001.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401h.jpg" width="353">
Lower prices continued to bolster home sales. The median sales price of an existing home rose in February (-15.5% y/y) after seven straight months of decline. Prices were down by one quarter from their peak during June 2007. Lower prices combined with lower interest rates to significantly raise the affordability index of a home by 26.5% year-to-year and by three quarters from the 2006 low. The latest level was a record high for the series which extends back to 1970.
Weak home sales are encouraging potential sellers to keep their homes off the market. The Realtors Association indicated in an earlier report that the number of homes on the market and available for sale fell by 5.5% during February versus one year earlier.
At the current sales rate there was a 9.7 months&#39; supply of homes on the market and there was a 10.4 months&#39; supply during all of last year, up from the 8.9 months supply during 2007 and 6.5 months during 2006. For single family homes, there was a 9.1 months&#39; supply in February versus a full-year figure of 10.0 months during 2008.
The pending home sales data are available in Haver&#39;s PREALTOR database. The number of homes on the market and prices 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">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>82.1</td>
<td>80.4</td>
<td>&nbsp;&nbsp; -1.4%</td>
<td>86.8</td>
<td>95.8</td>
<td>112.1&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Northeast</td>
<td>63.9</td>
<td>57.8</td>
<td>-11.3</td>
<td>72.6</td>
<td>85.6</td>
<td>98.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Midwest</td>
<td>83.1</td>
<td>72.6</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>80.6</td>
<td>89.5</td>
<td>102.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; South</td>
<td>85.8</td>
<td>82.2</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>89.8</td>
<td>107.3</td>
<td>127.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; West</td>
<td>89.6</td>
<td>103.6</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>99.3</td>
<td>92.1</td>
<td>109.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The National Association of Realtors indicated that pending sales of existing homes during February edged up 2.1% after the sharp 7.7% decline during January. The decline left sales so far this year 6.4% below the 2008 average after [...]

U.S. Pending Home Sales Tick Higher

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401i.jpg" width="353">
Perhaps the worst news on construction activity has passed. However, the industry detail suggests not to count on it. The value of construction put-in-place slipped just 0.9% during February following three consecutive months of decline in excess of 3%. Consensus expectations had been for a 1.7% drop.
A 0.3% increase in the value of nonresidential building activity was the source of the February surprise. It followed three consecutive months of decline between 1% and 4% which reflected the lagged effects of economic recession and the collapse of corporate profits. Those forces are ongoing. February increases in the lodging, health care, amusement and transportation sectors accounted for most of the overall increase in activity, but the gains made up at best half of the January declines. Spending on office construction was roughly flat after four months of sharp decline while the food/beverage, multi-retail, commercial, power and highways &amp; streets sectors continued down.
Residential building activity continued its downward march with a 4.3% decline after the similar 3.7% January drop. Single-family construction activity fell another 10.9% and remained off by nearly one half year-to-year. Building activity on multi-family units also was weak (-11.2% y/y) though spending on improvements repeated the January gain and rose 1.9% (-6.9% y/y).<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401j.jpg" width="353">
During the last twenty years there has been an 84% correlation between the q/q change in the value of residential building and its contribution to growth in real GDP.
Public construction edged up just 0.8% after two months of sharp decline. Again, the recession&#39;s effect on tax revenues may be taking hold. The level of activity for January and February was 1.8% below 2008. The value of spending on transportation facilities edged up just 0.8% (-4.7% y/y) after three months of sharp decline. Spending on highways &amp; streets also fell for the third straight month (+3.0% y/y). The value of construction on highways &amp; streets is roughly one-third of the value of total public construction spending.
The more detailed categories of construction 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.
The construction put-in-place figures are available in Haver&#39;s USECON 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/USECON/@E9/@E907/@E907.HTM">Construction</a> (%)</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>-3.5</td>
<td>-10.0</td>
<td>-5.7</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>6.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Private</td>
<td>-1.6</td>
<td>-4.0</td>
<td>-15.0</td>
<td>-9.8</td>
<td>-6.9</td>
<td>5.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Residential</td>
<td>-4.3</td>
<td>-3.7</td>
<td>-29.8</td>
<td>-27.7</td>
<td>-19.8</td>
<td>1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonresidential</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>-4.3</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>14.9</td>
<td>19.6</td>
<td>16.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Public</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>-2.4</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>6.7</td>
<td>12.3</td>
<td>9.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Perhaps the worst news on construction activity has passed. However, the industry detail suggests not to count on it. The value of construction put-in-place slipped just 0.9% during February following three consecutive months of [...]

U.S. Construction Spending; A More Moderate Decline

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/090401f.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
With the advent of Japan&#8217;s Tankan report, the US-UK Japan
point of view will line up on the side of more stimulus. It is not
clear that they have enough support to carry the day, however. Germany
is still opposed to more stimulus now and that position has been stated
again today. Both France and Germany want progress on regulation. Each
has said it wants real progress and agreement on a series of key
principles. So it&#8217;s not clear how these very different priorities will
play out at the summit. Where the US president says unity is the most
important theme, claiming that differences among G-20 members have been
exaggerated by the press. Wow, no wonder so many newspapers are failing. 
 

Japan&#8217;s Tankan is a worst-ever reading for large corporate
participants in the survey. Each of the survey categories across
various industries points to full period lows. Personal services at
large enterprises are an exception but not much of one. 
 

The MFG reading fell to -58 in Q1-2009 from -24 in Q4-2008.
Non MFG fell to -31 in Q1 from -9 in 2008-Q4. 
 

The MFG outlook index for large firms has dropped to -51 in
2009-Q1 from -36 in 2008-Q4. For non MFG firms the drop in the outlook
is to -30 in Q1 from -14 in 2008-Q4. These are deeply negative numbers
and represent sharp deteriorations from already weak readings in Q4. 
 

Medium and small companies have a similar unraveling in
progress. 
 

Japan has seen its domestic auto production fall sharply as
its exports have been hammered. The exports are lower by over 50%
Yr/Yr. Export markets have generally dried up as recession forces hit
hard on the cusp of the third to fourth quarter last year. Japan is
caught as its main exports are to the US, a very weak economy, and to
China where some growth remains in train but where its exports, too are
being clobbered. As of January US imports from Japan are down by 30%
Yr/Yr. Japan is burdened by a large outstanding balance of public debt
and as a rising yen value has crimped its competitiveness in a fading
market. 
 


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr><th colspan="8" scope="col">Tankan Results Large Enterprises </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="4">Readings</td>
<td colspan="2">Averages</td>
<td>PERCENTILES</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Q1-09</td>
<td>Q4-08</td>
<td>Q3-08</td>
<td>Q2-08</td>
<td>1-Y Avg</td>
<td>Since Q3'03</td>
<td>Since Q1'04</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG</td>
<td>-58.0</td>
<td>-24.0</td>
<td>-3.0</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>-41.0</td>
<td>12.1</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">NonMFG</td>
<td>-31.0</td>
<td>-9.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>-20.0</td>
<td>11.7</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Industry</td>
<td>-45.0</td>
<td>-16.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>7.0</td>
<td>-30.5</td>
<td>11.9</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Construction</td>
<td>-27.0</td>
<td>-10.0</td>
<td>-7.0</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>-18.5</td>
<td>-4.5</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Real Estate</td>
<td>-21.0</td>
<td>-7.0</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>22.0</td>
<td>-14.0</td>
<td>27.7</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Wholesale</td>
<td>-44.0</td>
<td>-7.0</td>
<td>11.0</td>
<td>12.0</td>
<td>-25.5</td>
<td>14.1</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Retail</td>
<td>-42.0</td>
<td>-18.0</td>
<td>-5.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>-30.0</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Transportation</td>
<td>-46.0</td>
<td>-7.0</td>
<td>6.0</td>
<td>16.0</td>
<td>-26.5</td>
<td>10.9</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Services 4 Biz</td>
<td>-21.0</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>20.0</td>
<td>-11.0</td>
<td>20.0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Personal Serv</td>
<td>-9.0</td>
<td>-11.0</td>
<td>6.0</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>-10.0</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Restaurants &amp; Hotels</td>
<td>-45.0</td>
<td>-32.0</td>
<td>-13.0</td>
<td>-14.0</td>
<td>-38.5</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Forecast</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Q2-09</td>
<td>Q1-09</td>
<td>Q4-08</td>
<td>Q3-08</td>
<td>1-Y Avg</td>
<td>Since Q3'03</td>
<td>Since Q1'04</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG-OtLk</td>
<td>-51.0</td>
<td>-36.0</td>
<td>-4.0</td>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>-21.8</td>
<td>10.4</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">NonMFG -Otlk</td>
<td>-30.0</td>
<td>-14.0</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>-9.3</td>
<td>11.4</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">All Industry-Otlk</td>
<td>-41.0</td>
<td>-25.0</td>
<td>-2.0</td>
<td>6.0</td>
<td>-15.5</td>
<td>10.8</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Tankan Results Medium
Enterprises</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Q1-09</td>
<td>Q4-08</td>
<td>Q3-08</td>
<td>1-Y Avg</td>
<td>1-Y Avg</td>
<td>Since Q3'03</td>
<td>Since Q1'04</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG</td>
<td>-57.0</td>
<td>-24.0</td>
<td>-8.0</td>
<td>-22.8</td>
<td>-22.8</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">NonMFG</td>
<td>-37.0</td>
<td>-21.0</td>
<td>-12.0</td>
<td>-18.8</td>
<td>-18.8</td>
<td>-3.3</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Forecast</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Q2-09</td>
<td>Q1-09</td>
<td>Q4-08</td>
<td>Q3-08</td>
<td>1-Y Avg</td>
<td>Since Q3'03</td>
<td>Since Q1'04</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG-OtLk</td>
<td>-61.0</td>
<td>-45.0</td>
<td>-12.0</td>
<td>-5.0</td>
<td>-30.8</td>
<td>-2.0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">NonMFG -Otlk</td>
<td>-45.0</td>
<td>-32.0</td>
<td>-17.0</td>
<td>-10.0</td>
<td>-26.0</td>
<td>-5.6</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">All Industry-Otlk</td>
<td>-51.0</td>
<td>-38.0</td>
<td>-15.0</td>
<td>-9.0</td>
<td>-28.3</td>
<td>-4.1</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Tankan Results Small
Enterprises</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Q2-09</td>
<td>Q1-09</td>
<td>Q4-08</td>
<td>Q3-08</td>
<td>1-Y Avg</td>
<td>Since Q3'03</td>
<td>Since Q1'04</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG</td>
<td>-57.0</td>
<td>-29.0</td>
<td>-17.0</td>
<td>-43.0</td>
<td>-43.0</td>
<td>-5.5</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">NonMFG</td>
<td>-42.0</td>
<td>-29.0</td>
<td>-24.0</td>
<td>-35.5</td>
<td>-35.5</td>
<td>-14.9</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Industry</td>
<td>-42.0</td>
<td>-29.0</td>
<td>-24.0</td>
<td>-35.5</td>
<td>-35.5</td>
<td>-14.9</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Forecast</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Q2-09</td>
<td>Q1-09</td>
<td>Q4-08</td>
<td>Q3-08</td>
<td>1-Y Avg</td>
<td>Since Q3'03</td>
<td>Since Q1'04</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG-OtLk</td>
<td>-63.0</td>
<td>-48.0</td>
<td>-25.0</td>
<td>-15.0</td>
<td>-37.8</td>
<td>-8.2</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">NonMFG -Otlk</td>
<td>-52.0</td>
<td>-42.0</td>
<td>-31.0</td>
<td>-27.0</td>
<td>-38.0</td>
<td>-19.0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">All Industry-Otlk</td>
<td>-56.0</td>
<td>-44.0</td>
<td>-29.0</td>
<td>-22.0</td>
<td>-37.8</td>
<td>-15.1</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

With the advent of Japan’s Tankan report, the US-UK Japan point of view will line up on the side of more stimulus. It is not clear that they have enough support to carry the day, however. Germany is still opposed to more stimulus now [...]

Japan TANKAN Makes Heavy Weight for Pre-Summit

<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" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401e.jpg">
The outplacement firm of Challenger, Grey &amp; Christmas reported that March job cut announcements eased for the second month to 150,411 following 186,350 layoffs during February. Both of the figures were down from the cycle high of 241,749 reached in January. Challenger also reported that announced hiring plans picked up somewhat from February.
Announcements of job cuts in the pharmaceutical industry were a strong 17,796 which was the second most on record. Announcements in the electronics industry also were strong. Another 11,550 jobs were shed and that was near the rate of decline during the prior three months.
Job cut announcements in the automotive sector eased sharply to 6,806 after a huge jump during February and the financial business shed 8,651 jobs. Employment in the retail industry fell 3,821 after the 18,759 February cut. Employment in the industrial goods industry also fell a more moderate 8,787. The computer industry shed 5,290 after the 3,960 February cutback.
During the last ten years there has been a 67% (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.
The Challenger figures are available in Haver&#39;s SURVEYS 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/SURVEYS/@S3/@S301/@S301.HTM">Challenger, Gray &amp; Christmas</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Announced Job Cuts</td>
<td>150,411</td>
<td>186,350</td>
<td>180.7%</td>
<td>1,223,993</td>
<td>768,264</td>
<td>839,822</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The outplacement firm of Challenger, Grey & Christmas reported that March job cut announcements eased for the second month to 150,411 following 186,350 layoffs during February. Both of the figures were down from the cycle high of [...]

Challenger Layoffs Ease Slightly Second 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>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401c.jpg" width="353">
The March composite index of activity in the manufacturing sector from the Institute for Supply Management improved slightly to 36.3 from 35.8 in February. Though the latest figure was still near the lowest level since the recession year of 1980, the index has remained in a range of 33 to 37 during the last five months. The break-even level for this diffusion index of factory sector activity is a level of 50.
During the last twenty years there has been a 72% correlation between the level of the composite index and the three-month growth in factory sector industrial production. The latest reading of the composite index suggests that the recent 10% rate of decline in industrial output will continue.
It is appropriate to correlate the ISM index level with factory sector growth because the ISM index is a diffusion index. It measures growth by using all of the positive changes in activity added to one half of the zero change in activity measures.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401d.jpg" width="353">
Improvement in the new orders index has been sharp since its December low as 28% of survey participants reported higher orders versus a low of 5%. Even the export order index improved modestly to a still low 39.0 versus the December reading of 35.5. Nevertheless, it remained near the lowest level in this index&#39;s short twenty year history. During the last ten years there has been a 53% correlation between the index and the q/q change in real exports of goods in the GDP accounts.
The production component was about unchanged after sharp improvement in January and February. Offsetting these gains were sharp declines in the vendor deliveries index to the lowest level since 1989. The inventory index was weak and fell to the lowest level since 1982.
The separate index of prices paid improved slightly but it remained near the record low. During the last twenty years there has been a 79% correlation between the price index and the three-month change in the PPI for intermediate goods.
The ISM data is available in Haver&#39;s USECON database.
How Will a Credit Crunch Affect Small Business Finance? from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is available <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2009/el2009-09.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/SURVEYS/@S2/@S201/@S201.HTM">ISM Mfg</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">March &#39;08</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Composite Index</td>
<td>36.3</td>
<td>35.8</td>
<td>49.0</td>
<td>45.5</td>
<td>51.1</td>
<td>53.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; New Orders Index</td>
<td>41.2</td>
<td>33.1</td>
<td>47.1</td>
<td>42.1</td>
<td>54.3</td>
<td>55.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Employment Index</td>
<td>28.1</td>
<td>26.1</td>
<td>49.3</td>
<td>43.2</td>
<td>50.5</td>
<td>51.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid Index (NSA)</td>
<td>31.0</td>
<td>29.0</td>
<td>83.5</td>
<td>66.5</td>
<td>64.6</td>
<td>65.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The March composite index of activity in the manufacturing sector from the Institute for Supply Management improved slightly to 36.3 from 35.8 in February. Though the latest figure was still near the lowest level since the recession [...]

Rise In ISM Index Suggests Factory Sector Stabilization

<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/090401a.jpg" width="353">
According to the payroll processor ADP in the latest National Employment Report, private nonfarm payrolls fell 742,000 last month after a 706,000 decline. The February figure was revised from the initial estimate of a 697,000 drop. The latest reading was the fourteenth consecutive monthly decline. Moreover, the annualized rate of decline in payrolls accelerated to 7.2% during the last three months, a record for the series which dates back only to 2001. Last month medium sized payrolls fell 330,000 (-4.5% y/y) followed by a 284,000 (-3.3% y/y) worker decline in small sized payrolls. Large payrolls fell by 128,000 (-4.7% y/y).
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics will report payroll employment this Friday. For comparison, February&#39;s 706,000 worker decline (-3.4% y/y) in ADP&#39;s measure of private nonfarm payrolls was accompanied by a 660,000 worker decline (-3.7% y/y) in the BLS measure of 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.
ADP reported that weakness in the goods producing sector resulted in 327,000 fewer jobs last month (-10.1% y/y). Medium sized payrolls fell 152,000 (-10.5% y/y) followed by a 111,000 (-9.3% y/y) shortfall in small sized payrolls. Large payrolls fell 64,000 (-10.5% y/y). In the manufacturing sector alone, payrolls fell 206,000 (-10.1% y/y). It has fallen in almost every month since 2001.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401b.jpg" width="353">
Employment in the service producing industry continued to fall sharply. The 415,000 (-2.6% y/y) decline was the twelfth consecutive monthly decline. Medium sized service payrolls fell 178,000 (-2.9% y/y) and small sized payrolls were off 173,000 (-2.2% y/y). Large service producing payrolls dropped by 64,000 (-3.0% 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 figures date 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_march_09.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/FINAL_Report_june_09.pdf">here</a>, and the ADP methodology is explained <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/ADPNERMethodology.pdf" title="blocked::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">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Nonfarm Private Payroll Employment (m/m Chg.)</td>
<td>-742,000</td>
<td>-706,000</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

According to the payroll processor ADP in the latest National Employment Report, private nonfarm payrolls fell 742,000 last month after a 706,000 decline. The February figure was revised from the initial estimate of a 697,000 drop. [...]

ADP Report: Payroll Employment Down Another 742,000

USD/EUR exchange rate uncoupling from interest rate differential

Widespread downgrading of 2025 GDP outlook

Trade and fiscal policy uncertainty has exploded with the new administration

Much lower US electricity costs gives it a competitive advantage

Wage growth slowing in the US and Euro area; elevated and sticky in the UK

Stagflation-lite: Blue Chip forecasts below-trend growth and elevated inflation

US policy gyrations boosting policy uncertainty worldwide

Expected tariff hikes have boosted inflation expectations

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

US economy expected to outperform other major economies in 2025

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

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

Heavy US manufacturing states underperforming while Sun Belt states outperforming

Rising long-term yields a global phenomenon

US financial market concerns shifting from growth to inflation

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

Policy uncertainty has surged since the US national elections.

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

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

Headline US PCE inflation elevated by sticky services prices

US and global equity prices have recently diverged

US leading global upturn in economic surprises

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

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

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

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

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

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

250506J8.jpg

250506K8.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

250506L8.jpg

250506M8.jpg

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

U.S. Trade Deficit Deepens to Record in March

250506C2.jpg

250506D2.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Energy Prices Remain Mixed in Latest Week

250506E.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

250506.jpg

Global Composite PMIs Erode

Tian Yong Woon

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

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

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

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

250506T1.jpg

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

250506T2.jpg

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

250506T3.jpg

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

250506T4.jpg

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

250506T5.jpg

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

250506T6.jpg

Asia

Economic Letter from Asia: Art of the Deal

250505N12.jpg

250505O12.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

250505P12.jpg

250505Q12.jpg

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

Economy in Brief: April 2009

Jump to:

U.S. Pending Home Sales Tick Higher

U.S. Construction Spending; A More Moderate Decline

Japan TANKAN Makes Heavy Weight for Pre-Summit

Challenger Layoffs Ease Slightly Second Month

Rise In ISM Index Suggests Factory Sector Stabilization

ADP Report: Payroll Employment Down Another 742,000

ADP Report: Payroll Employment Down Another 742,000