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/050119f.jpg" width="353">
Mortgage applications rebounded 16.2% last week following three weeks of decline according to the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) Survey.
Refi&#39;s led the gain with a 19.1% rise and so far this year are 2.4% higher than in December.
Purchase applications also rose 14.0% w/w. Nevertheless, the level of purchase applications were 10.6% below the December average which fell 0.3% from November. During the last ten years there has been a 59% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing home sales.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage slipped to 5.89% versus an average 6.05% during 2004 and 5.95% in December. The effective rate on a 15-year mortgage also fell to 5.44% last week.
The Mortgage Bankers Association surveys between 20 to 35 of the top lenders in the U.S. housing industry to derive its refinance, purchase and market indexes. The weekly survey accounts for more than 40% of all applications processed each week by mortgage lenders. Visit the Mortgage Bankers Association site <a href="http://www.mbaa.org">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYW/@S5/@S5.HTM">MBA Mortgage Applications (3/16/90=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">01/14/05</th>
<th scope="col">01/07/05</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>682.9</td>
<td>587.8</td>
<td>-25.5%</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
<td>799.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>448.1</td>
<td>393.1</td>
<td>-10.7%</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
<td>354.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>2,048.6</td>
<td>1,720.5</td>
<td>-38.4%</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
<td>3,388.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Mortgage applications rebounded 16.2% last week following three weeks of decline according to the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) Survey. Refi's led the gain with a 19.1% rise and so far this year are 2.4% higher than in December. [...]

Mortgage Applications Rebound

<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/050119e.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales fell another 0.9% last week ion top of the 0.6% decline the week earlier, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey.
Despite the weekly declines, sales in January are 1.6% ahead of the December average.
During the last ten years there has been a 58% correlation between y/y change in chain store sales and the change in non-auto retail sales less gasoline, as published by the US Census Department.
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC dropped for the third consecutive week (-1.4% y/y).
The ICSC-UBS retail chain-store sales index is constructed using the same-store sales (stores open for one year) reported by 78 stores of seven retailers: Dayton Hudson, Federated, Kmart, May, J.C. Penney, Sears and Wal-Mart.

<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/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">01/15/05</th>
<th scope="col">01/08/05</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">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>443.9</td>
<td>447.9</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Chain store sales fell another 0.9% last week ion top of the 0.6% decline the week earlier, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey. Despite the weekly declines, sales in January are 1.6% ahead of [...]

Chain Store Sales Slipped Further

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050119d.jpg" width="353">
With a 48,000 w/w decline to 319,000 last week, initial claims for unemployment insurance reversed all of the gains during the prior two weeks and fell to the lowest level in a month. Consensus expectations had been for 345,000 claims.
The latest figure is for the survey period for January nonfarm payrolls and it was 12,000 (3.6%) below the December period.
The four week moving average of initial claims fell to 341,000 (-4.1% y/y).
During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 82% correlation between the level of initial claims and the y/y change in payroll employment.
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance rose 47,000 and reversed just some of the huge 209,000 drop the week prior.
The insured rate of unemployment was stable at 2.1%.

<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">01/15/05</th>
<th scope="col">01/08/05</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>319</td>
<td>367</td>
<td>-10.6%</td>
<td>343</td>
<td>402</td>
<td>404</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>2,694</td>
<td>-15.4%</td>
<td>2,926</td>
<td>3,531</td>
<td>3,570</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

With a 48,000 w/w decline to 319,000 last week, initial claims for unemployment insurance reversed all of the gains during the prior two weeks and fell to the lowest level in a month. Consensus expectations had been for 345,000 [...]

Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance Down

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050119c.jpg" width="353">
Housing starts rose 10.9% in December to 2.004M, were upwardly revised for November and beatConsensus expectations for 1.91M starts. Starts for all of last year of 1.948M were the most since 2.001M homes were started in 1978.
Higher single-family starts led the gain in December with a 13.1% m/m rise to 1.678M which more than reversed the sharp decline in November, capping off a record year. Single family starts of 1.601M in 2004 were a 6.4% improvement on the old record set the year prior.
Multi family starts also edged higher in December but just modestly. For the full year they ended slightly below the 2003 average.
Building permits slipped in December by 0.3% m/m to 2.021M after an upwardly revised gain in November.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<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/@E901/@E90101/@E90101.HTM">Housing Starts (000s, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Nov</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>2,004</td>
<td>1,807</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>1,948</td>
<td>1,853</td>
<td>1,7 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Single-family</td>
<td>1,678</td>
<td>1,483</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>1,601</td>
<td>1,505</td>
<td>1,3 63</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Multi-family</td>
<td>3 26</td>
<td>324</td>
<td>-20.5%</td>
<td>346</td>
<td>348</td>
<td>347</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Building Permits</td>
<td>2,021</td>
<td>2,028</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1,996</td>
<td>1,8 89</td>
<td>1,749</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Housing starts rose 10.9% in December to 2.004M, were upwardly revised for November and beatConsensus expectations for 1.91M starts. Starts for all of last year of 1.948M were the most since 2.001M homes were started in 1978. Higher [...]

Housing Starts Firm: 2004 The Highest Since 1978

<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/050119a.jpg" width="353">
Consumer Prices (CPI-U) declined 0.1% in December, the first decline since July. Consensus expectations had been for no change. During 2004 prices logged the largest increase in some time. December to December, the 3.4% gain was the strongest since 2000 and the 2.7% rise for the whole year was the largest since 2001.
Prices less food &amp; energy rose an expected 0.2% in December for the third consecutive month. Again, 2004 was the strongest year for &quot;core&quot; pricing in years; the 2.3% gain December to December the largest since 2001 and the 2.7% gain for the full year was the strongest since 1996. The firming was, however, not due to stronger price increases but to less deflation of goods prices.
&quot;Core&quot; commodities price inflation weakened in December as lower prices for furniture (-0.5% y/y), apparel (-0.4% y/y) and computers (-13.2% y/y) offset higher tobacco prices. The 0.9% full year decline in core goods prices was the third in a row but it was less of a fall than during the prior two years.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050119b.jpg" width="353">
Services prices less energy also were tame last month, rising the same 0.2% as during the prior two. The full year increase of 2.8% was the weakest since 1999 as lower public transportation prices and lower communication prices offset faster gains in prices for shelter (2.7% y/y), medical care services (5.0% y/y) and tuition (7.1% y/y).
Lower energy prices pulled the CPI down last month, led lower by gasoline prices which fell 3.7% (+18.1% y/y) and lower fuel oil prices ((+15.5% y/y). Natural gas prices rose slightly (+3.8% y/y).
Food prices were unchanged in December but the full year gain of 3.5% was the strongest since 1990.
The chained CPI, which adjusts for shifts in the mix of consumer purchases, fell 0.4% in December. Similar to the PCE price deflator, core chain prices also fell last month and for the full year firmed moderately versus 2003.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM">Consumer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Nov</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total&nbsp;</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Services less Energy</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Energy</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>16.5%</td>
<td>10.9%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
<td>-5.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Food</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80113/@E80113.HTM">Chained CPI: Total (NSA)</a></td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Consumer Prices (CPI-U) declined 0.1% in December, the first decline since July. Consensus expectations had been for no change. During 2004 prices logged the largest increase in some time. December to December, the 3.4% gain was the [...]

December CPI Fell. 2004 Average Raised by Less Goods Price Deflation

<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/050119a.jpg" width="353">
Consumer Prices (CPI-U) declined 0.1% in December, the first decline since July. Consensus expectations had been for no change. During 2004 prices logged the largest increase in some time. December to December, the 3.4% gain was the strongest since 2000 and the 2.7% rise for the whole year was the largest since 2001.
Prices less food &amp; energy rose an expected 0.2% in December for the third consecutive month. Again, 2004 was the strongest year for &quot;core&quot; pricing in years; the 2.3% gain December to December the largest since 2001 and the 2.7% gain for the full year was the strongest since 1996. The firming was, however, not due to stronger price increases but to less deflation of goods prices.
&quot;Core&quot; commodities price inflation weakened in December as lower prices for furniture (-0.5% y/y), apparel (-0.4% y/y) and computers (-13.2% y/y) offset higher tobacco prices. The 0.9% full year decline in core goods prices was the third in a row but it was less of a fall than during the prior two years.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050119b.jpg" width="353">
Services prices less energy also were tame last month, rising the same 0.2% as during the prior two. The full year increase of 2.8% was the weakest since 1999 as lower public transportation prices and lower communication prices offset faster gains in prices for shelter (2.7% y/y), medical care services (5.0% y/y) and tuition (7.1% y/y).
Lower energy prices pulled the CPI down last month, led lower by gasoline prices which fell 3.7% (+18.1% y/y) and lower fuel oil prices ((+15.5% y/y). Natural gas prices rose slightly (+3.8% y/y).
Food prices were unchanged in December but the full year gain of 3.5% was the strongest since 1990.
The chained CPI, which adjusts for shifts in the mix of consumer purchases, fell 0.4% in December. Similar to the PCE price deflator, core chain prices also fell last month and for the full year firmed moderately versus 2003.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM">Consumer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Nov</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total&nbsp;</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Services less Energy</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Energy</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>16.5%</td>
<td>10.9%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
<td>-5.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Food</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80113/@E80113.HTM">Chained CPI: Total (NSA)</a></td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Housing Starts Firm: 2004 The Highest Since 1978 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> January 19, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050119c.jpg" width="353">
Housing starts rose 10.9% in December to 2.004M, were upwardly revised for November and beatConsensus expectations for 1.91M starts. Starts for all of last year of 1.948M were the most since 2.001M homes were started in 1978.
Higher single-family starts led the gain in December with a 13.1% m/m rise to 1.678M which more than reversed the sharp decline in November, capping off a record year. Single family starts of 1.601M in 2004 were a 6.4% improvement on the old record set the year prior.
Multi family starts also edged higher in December but just modestly. For the full year they ended slightly below the 2003 average.
Building permits slipped in December by 0.3% m/m to 2.021M after an upwardly revised gain in November.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<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/@E901/@E90101/@E90101.HTM">Housing Starts (000s, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Nov</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>2,004</td>
<td>1,807</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>1,948</td>
<td>1,853</td>
<td>1,7 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Single-family</td>
<td>1,678</td>
<td>1,483</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>1,601</td>
<td>1,505</td>
<td>1,3 63</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Multi-family</td>
<td>3 26</td>
<td>324</td>
<td>-20.5%</td>
<td>346</td>
<td>348</td>
<td>347</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Building Permits</td>
<td>2,021</td>
<td>2,028</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1,996</td>
<td>1,8 89</td>
<td>1,749</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance Down 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> January 19, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050119d.jpg" width="353">
With a 48,000 w/w decline to 319,000 last week, initial claims for unemployment insurance reversed all of the gains during the prior two weeks and fell to the lowest level in a month. Consensus expectations had been for 345,000 claims.
The latest figure is for the survey period for January nonfarm payrolls and it was 12,000 (3.6%) below the December period.
The four week moving average of initial claims fell to 341,000 (-4.1% y/y).
During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 82% correlation between the level of initial claims and the y/y change in payroll employment.
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance rose 47,000 and reversed just some of the huge 209,000 drop the week prior.
The insured rate of unemployment was stable at 2.1%.

<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">01/15/05</th>
<th scope="col">01/08/05</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>319</td>
<td>367</td>
<td>-10.6%</td>
<td>343</td>
<td>402</td>
<td>404</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>2,694</td>
<td>-15.4%</td>
<td>2,926</td>
<td>3,531</td>
<td>3,570</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Chain Store Sales Slipped Further 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> January 19, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050119e.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales fell another 0.9% last week ion top of the 0.6% decline the week earlier, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey.
Despite the weekly declines, sales in January are 1.6% ahead of the December average.
During the last ten years there has been a 58% correlation between y/y change in chain store sales and the change in non-auto retail sales less gasoline, as published by the US Census Department.
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC dropped for the third consecutive week (-1.4% y/y).
The ICSC-UBS retail chain-store sales index is constructed using the same-store sales (stores open for one year) reported by 78 stores of seven retailers: Dayton Hudson, Federated, Kmart, May, J.C. Penney, Sears and Wal-Mart.

<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/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">01/15/05</th>
<th scope="col">01/08/05</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">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>443.9</td>
<td>447.9</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Mortgage Applications Rebound 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> January 19, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050119f.jpg" width="353">
Mortgage applications rebounded 16.2% last week following three weeks of decline according to the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) Survey.
Refi&#39;s led the gain with a 19.1% rise and so far this year are 2.4% higher than in December.
Purchase applications also rose 14.0% w/w. Nevertheless, the level of purchase applications were 10.6% below the December average which fell 0.3% from November. During the last ten years there has been a 59% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing home sales.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage slipped to 5.89% versus an average 6.05% during 2004 and 5.95% in December. The effective rate on a 15-year mortgage also fell to 5.44% last week.
The Mortgage Bankers Association surveys between 20 to 35 of the top lenders in the U.S. housing industry to derive its refinance, purchase and market indexes. The weekly survey accounts for more than 40% of all applications processed each week by mortgage lenders. Visit the Mortgage Bankers Association site <a href="http://www.mbaa.org">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYW/@S5/@S5.HTM">MBA Mortgage Applications (3/16/90=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">01/14/05</th>
<th scope="col">01/07/05</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>682.9</td>
<td>587.8</td>
<td>-25.5%</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
<td>799.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>448.1</td>
<td>393.1</td>
<td>-10.7%</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
<td>354.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>2,048.6</td>
<td>1,720.5</td>
<td>-38.4%</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
<td>3,388.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Louise Curley

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050118e.jpg" width="353">
The Bank of Canada released the findings of its Winter 2004-5 Business Outlook Survey today. The Survey is one of the inputs used by the Bank in its determinations of monetary policy that will be discussed at its next interest rate setting meeting on January 25. The Bank raised its overnight target rate on September 8, 2004 to 2.25% from 2% and on October 19 to 2.50% where it has since remained.
Business is still optimistic, but less so than in the Fall survey. The balance of firms who expect increases over those who expect declines in future sales growth fell from 21.8% in the third quarter to 7.9% in the fourth quarter.
The Survey revealed that more firms expect to encounter some difficulty in meeting unexpected increases in demand, although fewer firms expect significant difficulty. The percent balance of those firms expecting some difficulty in meeting unexpected demand rose from 33% in the third quarter to 38% in the fourth quarter. While the percent balance expecting significant difficulty declined from 10% to 7% in the same period, the trend in those expecting significant difficulty has definitely been rising, though irregularly, since the last half of 2001. In all, the excess of firms expecting difficulty in meeting unexpected demand was 45%, up from 43% in the previous quarter. The balance of firms expecting to encounter some difficulty in meeting demand is a reasonably good indicator of business capacity utilization, as shown in the attached chart.
With increased capacity utilization, it is not surprising that business expects to increase employment and expenditures on machinery and equipment In the latest survey, the balance of firms expecting to increase machinery and equipment expenditures rose from 16.8% to 21.8% and the balance of firms expecting to increase employment rose from 32.7% to 37.6% even though the balance of firms experiencing a labor shortage fell from 44% to 36%
While the increase in the balance of firms expecting difficulty in meeting demand suggests an increase in inflationary pressures, the Survey showed a lessening of inflationary pressure from business pricing expectations. There was a significant decline in the balance of firms experiencing a decline in input prices--due, no doubt, to the rising Canadian dollar-- and an even larger decline in the balance of firms expecting to raise their output prices. The balance expecting a decline in input prices fell 22.8 percentage points and those expecting to raise output prices fell 24.8 percentage points from the Fall to the Winter survey. With regard to general inflation, the Survey revealed that the percentage of firms expecting inflation to be between 1 and 2% declined from 33% to 29% while the percentage of firms expecting inflation to between 2 and 3% rose from 54% to 56% and those expecting inflation of over 3% rose from 9% to12%.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Percent Balance</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 04</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 O4</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 03</th>
<th scope="col">Q/Q Dif</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y Dif</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;2004&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;2003&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;2002&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp; 2001&nbsp; &nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Future Sales Growth</td>
<td>7.9</td>
<td>21.8</td>
<td>32.0</td>
<td>13.9</td>
<td>24.1</td>
<td>17.9</td>
<td>22.0</td>
<td>21.8</td>
<td>-1.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Investment in machinery and equipment</td>
<td>21.8</td>
<td>16.8</td>
<td>11.0</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>10.8</td>
<td>17.0</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>10.7</td>
<td>-2.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Future employment</td>
<td>37.6</td>
<td>32.7</td>
<td>27.0</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>10.6</td>
<td>33.4</td>
<td>18.0</td>
<td>29.2</td>
<td>14.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Some difficulty in meeting demand</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>31</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Significant difficulty in meeting demand</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>-3</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Labor shortage &quot;Yes&quot;</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>-8</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>42</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Input prices</td>
<td>-22.8</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>-4.0</td>
<td>-21.8</td>
<td>-18.8</td>
<td>-3.5</td>
<td>-6.5</td>
<td>7.7</td>
<td>-19.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Output prices</td>
<td>-14.8</td>
<td>9.9</td>
<td>-19.0</td>
<td>-24.8</td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>-3.2</td>
<td>-6.0</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>-13.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Inflation expectations</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; 0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; 1-2%</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>-4</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>39</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; 2-3%</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>49</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; over 3%</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Bank of Canada released the findings of its Winter 2004-5 Business Outlook Survey today. The Survey is one of the inputs used by the Bank in its determinations of monetary policy that will be discussed at its next interest rate [...]

Canadian Business Outlook Survey Provides Food for Thought for The Bank of Canada's Interest Rate Meeting on January 25

<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/050118d.jpg" width="353">
The National Association of Home Builders&#39; (NAHB) Composite Housing Market Index fell slightly in January to 70 versus December&#39;s level of 71. Through 2004 the index drifted higher from 67 in 1Q to 69 in 2Q to 68 in 3Q to 70 in 4Q. The average of 68 rose 7.3% from 2003.
During the last twenty years, annual changes in the composite index had an 83% correlation with the change in new home sales. There&#39;s been an 86% correlation with the change in single family housing starts.
The NAHB index is a diffusion index based on a survey of builders. Readings above 50 signal that more builders view conditions as good than poor.
Each of the components of the composite fell in January with the largest declines logged in home builders&#39; read of prospective activity in six months and in traffic of prospective buyers of new homes.
Visit the National Association of Home Builders using this <a href="http://www.nahb.org">link</a>.
Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank President Anthony M Santomero&#39;s speech today on the economic outlook is available <a href="http://www.philadelphiafed.org/publicaffairs/speeches/2005_santomero1.html"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S4/@S4.HTM">Nat&#39;l Association of Home Builders</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Jan &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Housing Market Index</td>
<td>7 0</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>61</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The National Association of Home Builders' (NAHB) Composite Housing Market Index fell slightly in January to 70 versus December's level of 71. Through 2004 the index drifted higher from 67 in 1Q to 69 in 2Q to 68 in 3Q to 70 in 4Q. [...]

NAHB Housing Market Index Off

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

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

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

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

PMIs show still-elevated but slowing US inflation

AI boosting US investment in data centers

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

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

US financial markets have gotten used to elevated policy uncertainty

FOMC now expects more rate cuts going forward than in June

China gaining ASEAN exports while US exports slump

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

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

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

Equity market exuberance outpacing macroeconomic data

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

US production rebounded in Q2, but demand continued to slow

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

Negative US inflation surprises leading G10 down

Deflation continues in China

Incoming data surprising on downside in US; positive surprises elsewhere

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

Service Health

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

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Featured Data Additions

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

251230A4.jpg

251230B4.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

251230C4.jpg

251230D4.jpg

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

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

Winnie Tapasanun

251230J46.jpg

251230K46.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

251230L46.jpg

251230M46.jpg

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

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

Robert Brusca

251230E.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

251230.jpg

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

Spain

Spanish Inflation Flares at Year-End

251229A23.jpg

251229B23.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

251229C23.jpg

251229D23.jpg

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

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

251229F.jpg

251229G.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economy in Brief: 2005

Jump to:

Mortgage Applications Rebound

Chain Store Sales Slipped Further

Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance Down

Housing Starts Firm: 2004 The Highest Since 1978

December CPI Fell. 2004 Average Raised by Less Goods Price Deflation

December CPI Fell. 2004 Average Raised by Less Goods Price Deflation

Canadian Business Outlook Survey Provides Food for Thought for The Bank of Canada's Interest Rate Meeting on January 25

NAHB Housing Market Index Off