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/050602f.jpg" width="353">
Factory inventories rose just 0.1% in April following an upwardly revised 0.7% gain in March. These gains lowered the three month growth in inventories to 5.8%, nearly half the high rate of accumulation set last summer.
These figures have been bloated by the surge in oil prices. Less petroleum, factory inventories rose 0.1% (8.1% y/y) in April and the three month rate of accumulation slowed to 5.1% versus 10.9% in August.
A slower rate of inventory accumulation has been notable in the furniture industry where three month growth fell to 2.8% from a high of 28.4%. Accumulation of electrical equipment about halved to 9.6% and the level of computer inventories has declined versus a double digit rate of accumulation last summer. The slowdown in other industries has been widespread.
Factory shipments rose a firm 0.7% but here again the trend has weakened. Three month growth fell to 3.1% from a high of 20.4%. Less petroleum recent growth in shipments has been negative versus 17% growth a year ago.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050602g.jpg" width="353">
Orders to the factory sector rose 0.9%, juiced by a 1.9% rise in durable goods orders which was unrevised from the advance report.
Unfilled orders were unchanged and the ratio of unfilled orders to shipments fell to a new low.
Do Technological Improvements in the Manufacturing Sector Raise or Lower Employment? from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia can be found <a href="http://www.philadelphiafed.org/files/wps/2005/wp05-5.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">April</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Inventories</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>8.6%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">New Orders</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>6.8%</td>
<td>10.9%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>-1.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Shipments</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
<td>10.5%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Unfilled Orders</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>-6.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Factory inventories rose just 0.1% in April following an upwardly revised 0.7% gain in March. These gains lowered the three month growth in inventories to 5.8%, nearly half the high rate of accumulation set last summer. These figures [...]

U.S. Factory Inventory Growth Slowed

<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/050602e.jpg" width="353">
Job cut announcements jumped in May, however, the 42.2% m/m rise did not reverse all of the prior month&#39;s plunge. Therefore, the three month average of job cut announcements fell further to the lowest level since last August.
During the last ten years there has been an 84% (inverse) correlation between the three month moving average of announced job cuts and the three month change payroll employment.
Job cut announcements rose sharply m/m in the apparel (+234% y/y), computer (496% y/y) and insurance (321% y/y) industries but fell broadly elsewhere.
Job cut announcements differ from layoffs. Many are achieved through attrition, early retirement or just never occur.
Challenger also reported that announced hiring plans fell for the second month in the last three.

<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">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Announced Job Cuts</td>
<td>82,283</td>
<td>57,861</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
<td>1,039,175</td>
<td>1,236,426</td>
<td>1,431,052</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Job cut announcements jumped in May, however, the 42.2% m/m rise did not reverse all of the prior month's plunge. Therefore, the three month average of job cut announcements fell further to the lowest level since last August. During [...]

Challenger Layoffs Higher in May

<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/050602b.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance jumped 25,000 last week to 350,000, the highest level since late March. The prior week&#39;s level was revised up slightly and Consensus expectations had been for 325,000 claims.
The rise in claims was at least partially due to temporary auto industry layoffs not related to regular summer plant shutdowns for retooling.
During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 75% correlation between the level of initial claims for unemployment insurance and the monthly change in payroll employment. There has been a (negative) 65% correlation with the level of continuing claims.
The four week moving average of initial claims rose to 334,500 (-2.6% y/y).
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance reversed all of the prior week&#39;s decline and rose 32,000 to the highest level in six weeks.
The insured unemployment rate remained stable at 2.0% for the sixth consecutive week.

<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></th>
<th scope="col">05/28/05</th>
<th scope="col">05/21/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>350</td>
<td>325</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>343</td>
<td>402</td>
<td>404</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>2,602</td>
<td>-12.8%</td>
<td>2,926</td>
<td>3,531</td>
<td>3,570</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Initial claims for unemployment insurance jumped 25,000 last week to 350,000, the highest level since late March. The prior week's level was revised up slightly and Consensus expectations had been for 325,000 claims. The rise in [...]

Initial Claims for Jobless Insurance Jumped

<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>
 



Non-farm labor productivity growth about matched Consensus expectations and was revised higher to 2.9%. A surprise, however, was that compensation costs were revised up in 1Q to 6.3% and up sharply to 10.4% in 4Q04.
As a result of revisions to compensation, unit labor cost growth accelerated to 4.3% versus 1Q &#39;04 versus an upwardly revised 0.8% during 2004.
Productivity in the nonfinancial corporate sector rose 2.7% (4.9% y/y) following 9.0% growth during 4Q &#39;04. Compensation, however, rose 6.8% after a 10.2% 4Q rise and caused unit labor costs to rise 4.1% (2.0% y/y). The ratio of prices to unit labor costs fell to the lowest level in a year, confirming the crimp on 1Q profits.
Does Wage Inflation Cause Price Inflation? from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland can be found <a href="http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/PolicyDis/pd1.pdf">here</a>.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050602c.jpg" width="353"><img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050602d.jpg" width="353">

<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">1Q &#39;05 (Revised)</th>
<th scope="col">1Q &#39;05</th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Output per Hour</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Compensation</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>10.2%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unit Labor Costs</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Non-farm labor productivity growth about matched Consensus expectations and was revised higher to 2.9%. A surprise, however, was that compensation costs were revised up in 1Q to 6.3% and up sharply to 10.4% in 4Q04. As a result of [...]

U.S. Productivity Revised Higher But Compensation Strong

<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/050602a.jpg" width="353">
May sales of light vehicles reversed all of the prior month&#39;s gain and fell 4.5% to 16.67M according to the Autodata Corporation.
Car sales were notably weak following a firm April and fell 7.5%. So far this year the average level of car sales is 1.2% above last year.
Sales of light trucks fell 2.0% m/m to 9.14M. The average of truck sales so far this year is down 2.1% versus the first five months of 2004.
Imports&#39; share of the US market for new vehicles was about stable at 20.5% in May, up from 19.9% in 2004.
Gasoline prices fell to an average $2.10 per gallon during the last week of May, down 8.0% from the weekly high of $2.28 in early April but still up 13.2% from last year&#39;s average $1.85.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED09/@ED0901/@ED0901.HTM">Light Vehicle Sales (SAAR, Mil. Units)</a></th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>16.67</td>
<td>17.46</td>
<td>-5.9%</td>
<td>16.88</td>
<td>16.63</td>
<td>16.81</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Autos</td>
<td>7.53</td>
<td>8.14</td>
<td>-4.7%</td>
<td>7.49</td>
<td>7.62</td>
<td>8.07</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Trucks</td>
<td>9.14</td>
<td>9.32</td>
<td>-6.9%</td>
<td>9.39</td>
<td>9.01</td>
<td>8.74</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

May sales of light vehicles reversed all of the prior month's gain and fell 4.5% to 16.67M according to the Autodata Corporation. Car sales were notably weak following a firm April and fell 7.5%. So far this year the average level of [...]

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales 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>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050602a.jpg" width="353">
May sales of light vehicles reversed all of the prior month&#39;s gain and fell 4.5% to 16.67M according to the Autodata Corporation.
Car sales were notably weak following a firm April and fell 7.5%. So far this year the average level of car sales is 1.2% above last year.
Sales of light trucks fell 2.0% m/m to 9.14M. The average of truck sales so far this year is down 2.1% versus the first five months of 2004.
Imports&#39; share of the US market for new vehicles was about stable at 20.5% in May, up from 19.9% in 2004.
Gasoline prices fell to an average $2.10 per gallon during the last week of May, down 8.0% from the weekly high of $2.28 in early April but still up 13.2% from last year&#39;s average $1.85.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED09/@ED0901/@ED0901.HTM">Light Vehicle Sales (SAAR, Mil. Units)</a></th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>16.67</td>
<td>17.46</td>
<td>-5.9%</td>
<td>16.88</td>
<td>16.63</td>
<td>16.81</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Autos</td>
<td>7.53</td>
<td>8.14</td>
<td>-4.7%</td>
<td>7.49</td>
<td>7.62</td>
<td>8.07</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Trucks</td>
<td>9.14</td>
<td>9.32</td>
<td>-6.9%</td>
<td>9.39</td>
<td>9.01</td>
<td>8.74</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Challenger Layoffs Higher in May 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> June 2, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050602e.jpg" width="353">
Job cut announcements jumped in May, however, the 42.2% m/m rise did not reverse all of the prior month&#39;s plunge. Therefore, the three month average of job cut announcements fell further to the lowest level since last August.
During the last ten years there has been an 84% (inverse) correlation between the three month moving average of announced job cuts and the three month change payroll employment.
Job cut announcements rose sharply m/m in the apparel (+234% y/y), computer (496% y/y) and insurance (321% y/y) industries but fell broadly elsewhere.
Job cut announcements differ from layoffs. Many are achieved through attrition, early retirement or just never occur.
Challenger also reported that announced hiring plans fell for the second month in the last three.

<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">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Announced Job Cuts</td>
<td>82,283</td>
<td>57,861</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
<td>1,039,175</td>
<td>1,236,426</td>
<td>1,431,052</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Factory Inventory Growth Slowed 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> June 2, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050602f.jpg" width="353">
Factory inventories rose just 0.1% in April following an upwardly revised 0.7% gain in March. These gains lowered the three month growth in inventories to 5.8%, nearly half the high rate of accumulation set last summer.
These figures have been bloated by the surge in oil prices. Less petroleum, factory inventories rose 0.1% (8.1% y/y) in April and the three month rate of accumulation slowed to 5.1% versus 10.9% in August.
A slower rate of inventory accumulation has been notable in the furniture industry where three month growth fell to 2.8% from a high of 28.4%. Accumulation of electrical equipment about halved to 9.6% and the level of computer inventories has declined versus a double digit rate of accumulation last summer. The slowdown in other industries has been widespread.
Factory shipments rose a firm 0.7% but here again the trend has weakened. Three month growth fell to 3.1% from a high of 20.4%. Less petroleum recent growth in shipments has been negative versus 17% growth a year ago.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050602g.jpg" width="353">
Orders to the factory sector rose 0.9%, juiced by a 1.9% rise in durable goods orders which was unrevised from the advance report.
Unfilled orders were unchanged and the ratio of unfilled orders to shipments fell to a new low.
Do Technological Improvements in the Manufacturing Sector Raise or Lower Employment? from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia can be found <a href="http://www.philadelphiafed.org/files/wps/2005/wp05-5.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">April</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Inventories</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>8.6%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">New Orders</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>6.8%</td>
<td>10.9%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>-1.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Shipments</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
<td>10.5%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Unfilled Orders</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>-6.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Productivity Revised Higher But Compensation Strong 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> June 2, 2005


Non-farm labor productivity growth about matched Consensus expectations and was revised higher to 2.9%. A surprise, however, was that compensation costs were revised up in 1Q to 6.3% and up sharply to 10.4% in 4Q04.
As a result of revisions to compensation, unit labor cost growth accelerated to 4.3% versus 1Q &#39;04 versus an upwardly revised 0.8% during 2004.
Productivity in the nonfinancial corporate sector rose 2.7% (4.9% y/y) following 9.0% growth during 4Q &#39;04. Compensation, however, rose 6.8% after a 10.2% 4Q rise and caused unit labor costs to rise 4.1% (2.0% y/y). The ratio of prices to unit labor costs fell to the lowest level in a year, confirming the crimp on 1Q profits.
Does Wage Inflation Cause Price Inflation? from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland can be found <a href="http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/PolicyDis/pd1.pdf">here</a>.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050602c.jpg" width="353"><img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050602d.jpg" width="353">

<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">1Q &#39;05 (Revised)</th>
<th scope="col">1Q &#39;05</th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Output per Hour</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Compensation</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>10.2%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unit Labor Costs</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Initial Claims for Jobless Insurance Jumped 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> June 2, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050602b.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance jumped 25,000 last week to 350,000, the highest level since late March. The prior week&#39;s level was revised up slightly and Consensus expectations had been for 325,000 claims.
The rise in claims was at least partially due to temporary auto industry layoffs not related to regular summer plant shutdowns for retooling.
During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 75% correlation between the level of initial claims for unemployment insurance and the monthly change in payroll employment. There has been a (negative) 65% correlation with the level of continuing claims.
The four week moving average of initial claims rose to 334,500 (-2.6% y/y).
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance reversed all of the prior week&#39;s decline and rose 32,000 to the highest level in six weeks.
The insured unemployment rate remained stable at 2.0% for the sixth consecutive week.

<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></th>
<th scope="col">05/28/05</th>
<th scope="col">05/21/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>350</td>
<td>325</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>343</td>
<td>402</td>
<td>404</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>2,602</td>
<td>-12.8%</td>
<td>2,926</td>
<td>3,531</td>
<td>3,570</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
China Trade in Surplus, but Imports Are Large, Nonetheless 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> June 2, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050602h.jpg" width="353">
In the May edition of &quot;Haver Analytics News&quot;, we announced the availability of the CEIC China Premium Database. This new database, CHINA, has over 125,000 series covering many, many facets of Chinese economic life. The level of detail is extensive, including such items as the number of visitors to China who arrive on foot in any given month, the prices for common Portland cement by intensity and the gross domestic product of Shanghai, annually, by industry.
Earlier this week, the General Administration of Customs reported foreign trade data for April. The surplus was $4.6 million, consisting of $62.2 billion in exports and $57.6 billion in imports. On examining these figures over time, we were startled to find that, while trade surpluses prevail, the trend is not nearly the one-sided imbalance that one might envision. In fact, there has even been the occasional monthly trade deficit. During the last 12 months, the surplus has averaged $5.4 billion, equivalent to just about 10% of China&#39;s exports. By contrast, in Japan, the 12-month average trade surplus has represented 23% of exports and in Germany, 21%, much larger proportional imbalances than in China.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050602i.jpg" width="353">
Thus, not only are China&#39;s exports large and growing rapidly, so are China&#39;s imports. In 2004, exports of goods totaled $593.6 billion, up 35.4% from 2003. Imports were $560.8 billion, up 35.8%. Just in the last three months, however, imports have slowed, so their average for February, March and April is &quot;just&quot; 10.8% higher than a year ago. Products contributing most to the lessening pace include textiles, paper and several machinery categories. At the same time, as elsewhere, petroleum imports continue to grow strongly, along with its derivatives, chemicals and plastics. Some durable goods remain strong as well, including wood products and electrical equipment.
In the second graph here, we show imports growth along with that of GDP. We see that most of the time since 1999 imports have grown faster than GDP. Thus, even as trade accounts run surpluses, China clearly spends a sizable portion of its export earnings on imported products. A concentration in machinery suggests that building and upgrading plants is a major priority.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/CHINA/CHINA.HTM">China</a> Millions of US$</th>
<th scope="col">12-Mo Avg, Apr 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 2004</th>
Monthly Averages
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
<td>2002</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Trade Balance</td>
<td>5392</td>
<td>4591</td>
<td>5733</td>
<td>-2250</td>
<td>2736</td>
<td>2115</td>
<td>2528</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Exports, fob</td>
<td>54071</td>
<td>62151</td>
<td>60869</td>
<td>47124</td>
<td>49471</td>
<td>36540</td>
<td>27137</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Imports, cif</td>
<td>48680</td>
<td>57560</td>
<td>55136</td>
<td>49374</td>
<td>46734</td>
<td>34425</td>
<td>24609</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Carol Stone, CBE

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050601a.jpg" width="353">
Manufacturing activity in Europe is decreasing. The widely followed &quot;PMI&quot; surveys, compiled by NTC Research in London and published by Reuters, indicate net decreases in overall manufacturing in the Euro-Zone for May, the second consecutive month. The total index is 48.70, off from 49.19 in April. All the major component countries registered readings below 50 as well. In fact, only the Czech Republic is holding onto growth, and at 51.39, that is slowing. Readings above 50 indicate net gains in business, while below 50 show a net contraction.
Yesterday in this space, Louise Curley described weakness in business and consumer confidence in Europe, and of course, French voters surprised their own government and Euro-Zone officials by soundly rejecting the European Union constitution, surely a manifestation of this lack of overall &quot;confidence&quot; in the region. Today&#39;s manufacturing data underscore some fundamental sources for that malaise.
Among the components of the PMI survey, new orders are below 50 for a second month and order backlogs are down for a third successive month. May is the first month that total output has fallen below the 50% breakeven level.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050601b.jpg" width="353">
There is one notable sign of hope in these data. Input prices have been very strong in recent months, reaching a high of 76.7% last October. But the upward pressure on these costs has been dissipating, and in May nearly disappeared altogether. The input price index was 50.73 for the Euro-Zone, the lowest since September 2003. We&#39;d surmise that the recent moderation in energy markets has contributed to this, and other commodity price movements have tempered as well.
In contrast, as we illustrate in the table below, manufacturing in two Asian economies is still growing. In Japan, a modest rise in the PMI index in May extends an uptrend to a fifth month. The China PMI eased from 54.36 to 53.27, but those followed a spurt in March to over 55; the Chinese series remain inconclusive at this time though, because there is only 13 months&#39; worth of data.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">PMI for Manufacturing&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">May 2005</th>
<th scope="col">April 2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Euro-Zone</td>
<td>48.70</td>
<td>49.19</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>49.44</td>
<td>49.73</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>48.76</td>
<td>49.80</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>47.12</td>
<td>47.98</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Japan</td>
<td>53.53</td>
<td>53.32</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">China</td>
<td>53.27</td>
<td>54.36</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Manufacturing activity in Europe is decreasing. The widely followed "PMI" surveys, compiled by NTC Research in London and published by Reuters, indicate net decreases in overall manufacturing in the Euro-Zone for May, the second [...]

Euro-Zone Manufacturing PMI Shows Net Contraction for 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/050601c.jpg" width="353">
Total mortgage applications last week gave back more than half of the prior week&#39;s bounce and fell 2.8%. Applications so far in May are 6.5% ahead of April, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.
Purchase applications dropped 4.1% but in May still are 3.1% ahead of April. During the last ten years there has been a 50% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing single family home sales.
Applications to refinance fell 1.2% yet in May are 11.2% higher than in April.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage fell to 5.83% from 5.88% the week prior. The effective rate on a 15-year mortgage fell to 5.42%.
The Mortgage Bankers Association surveys between 20 to 35 of the top lenders in the U.S. housing industry to derive its refinance, purchase and market indexes. The weekly survey accounts for more than 40% of all applications processed each week by mortgage lenders. Visit the Mortgage Bankers Association site <a href="http://www.mbaa.org">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYW/@S5/@S5.HTM">MBA Mortgage Applications (3/16/90=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">05/27/05</th>
<th scope="col">05/20/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>709.1</td>
<td>729.6</td>
<td>13.5%</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
<td>799.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>462.7</td>
<td>482.3</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
<td>354.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>2,142.1</td>
<td>2,167.9</td>
<td>35.3%</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
<td>3,388.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Total mortgage applications last week gave back more than half of the prior week's bounce and fell 2.8%. Applications so far in May are 6.5% ahead of April, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. Purchase applications dropped [...]

Mortgage Applications Off Again

Even with expected tariff-induced increases in inflation, BCFF forecasters look for a more aggressive round of monetary easing

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

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

Andrew Cates

**The global business cycle** 
The recent sharp decline in the Future Output Balance in the global composite PMI survey reflects a sudden deterioration in global business expectations. The sweeping tariffs, introduced in April 2025, have generated heightened uncertainty around trade policy and sparked fears of retaliatory actions from key trading partners. As a result, businesses worldwide are scaling back their expectations for future output, wary of rising costs, disrupted demand flows, and a broader shift toward protectionism that could undermine global economic momentum.

250507Z1.jpg

Note: The extreme declines in the Future Output Balance that were recorded in the early months of 2020 (at the height of the COVID pandemic) have been removed from this chart.

**Global supply chain pressures**
Still, despite the marked deterioration in global business expectations, this second chart below provides a reassuring counterpoint: as of now, there is little evidence that global supply chain pressures have materially intensified. Both the New York Fed’s Global Supply Chain Pressure Index and the Baltic Exchange Dry Index remain relatively subdued, especially compared to the pandemic-era spikes of 2020–2022. While there has been heightened concern following the April 2025 US tariff announcements, these trade policy shifts have yet to translate into measurable physical disruption in logistics or freight rates. The stability of these indices suggests that although sentiment has taken a hit, global shipping networks and supply flows are, for now, absorbing the shock. However, this calm may prove fragile if the policy environment hardens further or retaliatory trade actions begin to compound the strain.

250507Z2.jpg

**Expectations for central banks’ policy rates** 
Adding to the picture of mounting economic caution, the latest Blue Chip Financial Forecasts survey reveals that expectations for policy easing over the next 12 months have become even more pronounced than in previous months. While earlier surveys had already pointed to a further extension of the global rate-cutting cycle, the latest results suggest forecasters now anticipate a deeper and more aggressive round of monetary easing—most notably from the US Federal Reserve, which is now expected to deliver nearly a full percentage point in rate cuts over the next 12 months. The sharp deterioration in business sentiment is reshaping the macro narrative: central banks are no longer simply guiding inflation lower, but are instead preparing to confront the risk of a deeper, demand-driven slowdown.

250507Z3.jpg

**Energy prices and inflation** 
Adding further context to the growing expectations for policy easing, oil prices have dropped sharply in recent weeks—driven by mounting concerns over global growth, as reflected in weakening business sentiment and softer demand indicators. The chart below provides a longer-run perspective on why this matters: energy prices have historically played a central role in shaping the global inflation trajectory. The strong positive correlation (r = 0.83) between median world energy price inflation and median core consumer price inflation underscores the powerful pass-through effects energy costs can have on broader price dynamics. While core inflation tends to be stickier, this historical relationship makes clear that sustained declines in energy prices often foreshadow broader disinflationary trends.

250507Z4.jpg

**Intangibles versus tangibles** 
Shifting focus from short-term cyclical risks to longer-term structural dynamics, the next chart below underscores a fundamental transformation in the composition of US investment: the economy has increasingly been built on intangibles. Over the past several decades, investment in intangible assets—such as software, intellectual property, R&D, and brand equity—has steadily climbed and, since the mid-2010s, has overtaken investment in both structures and equipment as a share of GDP. This shift reflects the rise of a knowledge-based, innovation-driven economy, but it also introduces new forms of vulnerability. Unlike physical capital, intangible assets rely heavily on trust, reputation, legal protections, and global openness. In this context, escalating trade frictions and a more confrontational US economic stance—as signalled by the recent tariff wave—risk eroding the goodwill and institutional credibility that underpin much of the value created by intangibles. If geopolitical uncertainty undermines the perceived reliability of US intellectual property protections or weakens global collaboration, it could pose a deeper structural challenge to future growth than any immediate cyclical downturn.

250507Z5.jpg

**Investment in Artificial Intelligence**
The centrality of intangibles to the US growth model is nowhere more evident than in the explosion of private investment in artificial intelligence. As this chart illustrates, global AI investment has surged over the past decade—reaching new highs in 2024—and the United States has consistently accounted for the lion’s share of that spending. This reflects not only America’s previous leadership in frontier technologies but also its dependence on intangible capital, from algorithms and data infrastructure to human expertise and institutional trust. However, this dominance also underscores the strategic stakes of current policy choices. In an environment of rising trade tensions and potential fragmentation, the foundations of US leadership in AI—cross-border collaboration, data openness, and global market access—could be at risk.

250507Z6.jpg

Financial market sentiment has rebounded in recent weeks, buoyed by signs of de-escalation in the US-led trade war and growing confidence that central banks—particularly the Federal Reserve—will step in with more rate cuts to cushion any fallout. Yet beneath the surface, a more sobering picture of the global economy persists. For example, latest PMI surveys reveal that global business expectations have slumped to their lowest levels since the pandemic, reflecting widespread unease about the growth outlook (chart 1). While supply chain pressures have so far remained contained, suggesting no repeat of the logistical chaos seen during the pandemic (chart 2), the latest Blue Chip Financial Forecasts survey reveals that forecasters are now pencilling in deeper and more widespread monetary easing than previously anticipated—an acknowledgment that demand is faltering (chart 3). Falling oil prices further reinforce this view: they are both a symptom of weakening global demand and a potential source of disinflation, reducing the urgency for central banks to maintain tight policy (chart 4). At the structural level, the US economy's increasing reliance on intangible assets—ranging from intellectual property to reputation—has made it more vulnerable to geopolitical frictions and the erosion of global trust (chart 5). This risk is compounded by America's dominant role in AI investment, a sector symbolic of both its economic strengths and its exposure to international perceptions (chart 6). The longer-term challenge, then, is not just navigating the current downturn, but ensuring that the institutional goodwill and cross-border openness that support the modern US economy are not sacrificed in a more fragmented and uncertain global order.

Charts of the Week: Relief Rally Meets Recession Risk

250507J1.jpg

250507K1.jpg

At today’s meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, the target range for the Fed funds rate was left unchanged at 4.25% to 4.50%. This followed reductions at three consecutive meetings in the fall of 2024. Rates remain below the high of 5.25% to 5.50% in place in mid-September. Today’s target range matched expectations in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.

The statement following the meeting indicated that, “The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent over the longer run. Uncertainty about the economic outlook has increased further. The Committee is attentive to the risks to both sides of its dual mandate and judges that the risks of higher unemployment and higher inflation have risen.”

“The Committee's assessments will take into account a wide range of information, including readings on labor market conditions, inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and financial and international developments.”

The Fed continued, “The Committee will continue reducing its holdings of Treasury securities and agency debt and agency mortgage backed securities.”

250507L1.jpg

250507M1.jpg

- FOMC holds funds rate target at late-December level.
- Risk assessments include higher unemployment & inflation.

FOMC Targeted Funds Rate Range Is Unchanged; Increased Risks Acknowledged

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

250507F4.jpg

250507G4.jpg

Consumer credit outstanding rose $10.2 billion (1.9% y/y) during March after declining by $0.6 billion (+1.7% y/y) during February, revised from a decline of $0.8 billion (+1.7% y/y. A $10.0 billion rise had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. As a percentage of disposable personal income, consumer credit was 22.4% in March, compared to 22.9% one year earlier.

Nonrevolving credit outstanding rose $8.3 billion (1.5% y/y) in March after easing $0.3 billion (1.3% y/y) in February. Nonrevolving credit held by depository institutions declined 7.8% y/y in March after declining 9.0% y/y in February. Finance company debt holdings rose 0.8% y/y, while credit union holdings eased 1.9% y/y in March. Nonrevolving debt held by the federal government rose 3.4% y/y.

In March, revolving credit outstanding, which includes credit cards, rose $1.9 billion (2.9% y/y) following a decline of $0.3 billion (2.9% y/y) in February. Revolving credit outstanding held by depository institutions fell 1.5% y/y. Revolving credit held by finance companies dropped 12.2% y/y, while that held by credit unions rose 3.7% y/y.

The consumer credit figures from the Federal Reserve Board are break-adjusted and calculated by Haver Analytics. The breaks in the series in 2005, 2010 and 2015 are the result of the incorporation of data from the Census and the Survey of Finance Companies, as well as changes in the seasonal adjustment methodology. The consumer credit data are available in Haver’s **USECON** database. The Action Economics forecast figures are contained in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250507H4.jpg

250507I4.jpg

- Consumer credit rises close to expectations.
- Nonrevolving and revolving credit rise.


U.S. Consumer Credit Rebounded in March

250507A20.jpg

250507B20.jpg

Mortgage applications increased 11.0% (26.0% y/y) in the week ended May 2, after declining 4.2% in the week ended April 25, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey. Applications to purchase a home rose 11.1% (12.9% y/y) in the week ended May 2 after declining 4.4% in the previous week. Loan applications to refinance a home loan also increased 11.1% (51.0% y/y) in the latest week after falling 3.7% in the prior week.

The effective interest rate on a 30-year fixed rate loan of 7.03% in the week ended May 2 compared to 7.08% in the prior week. The effective rate on a 15-year fixed rate loan of 6.34% in the week ended May 2 followed 6.36% in the prior week. The rate on a 30-year jumbo loan declined to 6.99% in the latest week from 7.06% in the prior week, while the rate on a 5-year ARM eased	to 6.08% in the week ended May 2 from 6.12% in the prior week.

The share of applications to refinance an existing mortgage slipped to 37.1% in the week ended May 2 from 37.3% in the prior week. The share of loans with an adjustable rate rose to 8.3% in the latest week from 7.4% one week earlier.

The average size of a mortgage loan rose 4.2% (3.8% y/y) to $400,200 in the week ended May 2, after slipping 0.7% to $384,100 in the prior week. The average size of a loan to purchase a home increased 1.0% (0.2% y/y) to $444,300 in the latest week from $440,100 in the week prior. The average size of a loan to refinance an outstanding mortgage increased 12.3% (27.6% y/y) last week to $325,400 from $289,800 one week earlier.

The Mortgage Bankers Association Survey covers 75% of all U.S. retail residential mortgage applications and has been conducted weekly since 1990. Respondents include mortgage bankers, commercial banks and thrifts. The base period and value for all indexes is March 16, 1990=100. The figures for weekly mortgage applications and interest rates are available in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database.

- Purchase & refinancing loan applications jump.
- Effective interest rates remain range-bound.
- Average loan size increases.

Mortgage Applications Surge as Interest Rates Ease Last Week

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.

Economy in Brief: June 2005

Jump to:

U.S. Factory Inventory Growth Slowed

Challenger Layoffs Higher in May

Initial Claims for Jobless Insurance Jumped

U.S. Productivity Revised Higher But Compensation Strong

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Fell

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Fell

Euro-Zone Manufacturing PMI Shows Net Contraction for Second Month

Mortgage Applications Off Again