Tom Moeller

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>

   <p><a href="/comment/130625j_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130625j.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130625k_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130625k.png"></a></p>

                      The housing market continues to improve.
                      <b>New home sales</b>  increased 2.1% (29.0% y/y) last
                      month to 476,000 (AR) from a revised 466,000 during April,
                      initially reported as 454,000. The latest level was the
                      highest since July 2008 and outpaced Consensus
                      expectations for sales of 462,000. Sales were mixed m/m
                      throughout the country. New home sales in the Midwest
                      jumped 40.7% (76.6% y/y) to 83,000. Sales in the Northeast
                      rose 20.7% to 35,000; however, sales were unchanged y/y.
                      Sales in the West rose 3.6% (18.6% y/y) to 115,000. To the
                      downside were sales in the South as they posted a 9.0%
                      decline (+27.9% y/y). 
                      <p>The recent strengthening of home&nbsp; prices hesitated
                      last month.
                      <b>Home prices</b> fell 3.2%
                      (+10.3% y/y) to a median of $263,900 in May. The average
                      price of a new home sold fell 7.1% (+9.6% y/y) to
                      $307,800.</p>
                      <p>Conditions in the new home market remain tight. The <b>inventory
                      of unsold homes</b>  backed up recently but the <b>months
                      supply</b>  of new homes was near the old low of 4.1. The <b>length
                      of time to sell a new home rose m/m to 4.4 </b>months.
                      That's up from the December low of 3.2 months. These
                      figures compare to more than 14.0 months at the end of
                      2009.</p>
                      <p>The data in this report are available in Haver's <b>USECON</b>
                      database. The consensus expectation figure is from the
                      Action Economics survey and is available in the <b>AS1REPNA</b>
                      database.&nbsp;</p>
     
     <p><a href="/comment/130625l_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130625l.png"></a>
        <a href="/comment/130625m_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130625m.png"></a></p>
  
<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
        <thead>
          <tr>
                            <th class="firstcol">U.S. New Home Sales</th>
                            <th scope="col">May</th>
                            <th scope="col">Apr</th>
                            <th scope="col">Mar</th>
                            <th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
                            <th scope="col">2012</th>
                            <th scope="col">2011</th>
                            <th scope="col">2010</th>
                          </tr>
                        </thead>
                        <tbody>
                          <tr>
                            <td class="firstcol">Total (SAAR, 000s)</td>
                            <td>476</td>
                            <td>466</td>
                            <td>451</td>
                            <td>29.0</td>
                            <td>366</td>
                            <td>307</td>
                            <td>321</td>
                          </tr>
                          <tr class="odd">
                            <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Northeast</td>
                            <td>35</td>
                            <td>29</td>
                            <td>36</td>
                            <td>0.0</td>
                            <td>28</td>
                            <td>21</td>
                            <td>31</td>
                          </tr>
                          <tr>
                            <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Midwest</td>
                            <td>83</td>
                            <td>59</td>
                            <td>61</td>
                            <td>76.6</td>
                            <td>49</td>
                            <td>45</td>
                            <td>45</td>
                          </tr>
                          <tr class="odd">
                            <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;South</td>
                            <td>243</td>
                            <td>267</td>
                            <td>242</td>
                            <td>27.9</td>
                            <td>195</td>
                            <td>168</td>
                            <td>173</td>
                          </tr>
                          <tr>
                            <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;West</td>
                            <td>115</td>
                            <td>111</td>
                            <td>112</td>
                            <td>18.6</td>
                            <td>94</td>
                            <td>72</td>
                            <td>74</td>
                          </tr>
                          <tr class="odd">
                            <td class="firstcol">Median Price (NSA,
                              $)</td>
                            <td>263,900</td>
                            <td>272,600</td>
                            <td>255,000</td>
                            <td>10.3</td>
                            <td>242,258</td>
                            <td>224,317</td>
                            <td>221,242</td>
                         </tr>
              </tbody>
            </table>
            </span>
</body></html>

The housing market continues to improve. New home sales increased 2.1% (29.0% y/y) last month to 476,000 (AR) from a revised 466,000 during April, initially reported as 454,000. The latest level was the highest since July 2008 and [...]

U.S. New Home Sales Rise To Recovery High

Robert Brusca

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	  <br>
      
      
      <p></p>

     
	  <p><a href="/comment/130625e_big.png" name="modal"><img class="large" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130625e.png" align="left"></a>


French business climate according to the INSEE index is up to 93 in June from 92 in May with May itself having risen to 92 from 89. The chart shows that there is some slight ongoing improvement but mostly that the downtrend in business confidence has been halted. The two-line chart of this activity shows the current index moving up slightly; there is more progress registered in terms of year-over-year improvement owing to a comparison with even weaker conditions in June of one year ago.

</p><p>
The recent trend is still poor at a reading of -42 but it’s better than -46 in May and -49 in April. The ‘likely trend’ at zero is better than the -2 reading for May and for April.  New orders/demand situation overall has improved to -30 from -31 and that was an improvement from -40 back in April. The foreign orders situation hasn’t really improved very much. In the month its gain to -27 from -29 is still weaker than the -26 of April or the -25 from March. What we see is some sense of improved domestic orders and in domestic demand conditions compared to international orders and conditions. The ‘likely sales price trend’ remains negative and while the June reading is a modest improvement from May, April still is much weaker than it was in March.

</p><p>
Viewed in an historic context the climate reading is in the bottom 26% of its historic queue of values back to early 1990. The weakest relative reading is from the ‘recent trend’ which stands in the 12 percentile of its historic queue implying that it has been weaker than this only 12% of the time historically. Orders and demand as well as foreign orders and demand are both weak and stand approximately the lower 24th percentile of their respective historic queues. Only slightly better is the ‘likely sales price trend’ which is in the bottom 26 percentile of its historic queue. Slightly more optimistic and I emphasize that it’s only slightly optimistic is the ‘likely trend reading’ which is in about the lower 30th percentile of its historic queue. Queue standings are still extremely week.  A brief perusal of the chart shows how weak the current numbers are compared to recent historic experience. The chart also shows the meager sense of improvement and of acceleration in the current numbers.

</p><p>
While it’s true that business confidence has improved it’s also true that it hasn’t approved by much. Climate is only back to a level that is very marginally better than what the readings have been and only back to what the readings were in September of last year. France continues to struggle.

</p><p>
On other fronts the UK survey of retail sales in June produced a standoff with nearly as many retailers reporting improve sales as reported worse sales. Weather has been a problem for retail sales in the UK and retailers are hoping that they’ll be a reversal so that sales can improve next month. In Italy, retail sales declined for the eighth consecutive month in April although the pace of decline slowed slightly.

</p><p>
The bottom line is that between what businesses are seeing what consumers are experiencing the euro-Zone continues to be under a great deal of pressure and continues to be waffling. The recent financial turmoil in markets is doing nothing to help the circumstances. It appears that we may have moved into another danger zone - maybe not a major danger zone- but it appears to be a danger zone nonetheless. It appears to be prompted by concerns about shifted Federal Reserve policy and what that will mean for the US and the rest of the world’s growth as well as financial markets performance.  In addition it appears to have unveiled a credit bubble that is percolating in China and that could prove to be more of a risk factor for the rest of the world. That bears extremely close scrutiny. 

</p>
 
 
 <p><img border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130625.png" width="768" height="614"></p>
 
  </html>

French business climate according to the INSEE index is up to 93 in June from 92 in May with May itself having risen to 92 from 89. The chart shows that there is some slight ongoing improvement but mostly that the downtrend in [...]

French Businessmen See Some Improvement

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	  <br>
      
      
      <p></p>

    <p><a href="/comment/130625a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130625a.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130625b_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130625b.png"></a></p>



        <p>Improvement in new orders is broadening within the factory sector.
        New orders for durable
        goods jumped
         3.6% 
         (7.6% y/y) during May following a like increase in
        April, initially reported as 3.3%. A 2.5% rise in orders for last month had been expected.
        As in April, higher orders in the transportation sector led the increase
        with a 10.2% gain (19.2% y/y). It reflected a 39.2% jump (60.5% y/y) in
        aircraft &amp; parts bookings. Nondefense aircraft orders increased by
        one-half (85.9% y/y) while defense aircraft orders gained 3.7% (0.5%
        y/y. Orders for
        motor vehicles and parts fell 1.2% (+7.3% y/y).</p>
        <p>Orders excluding the transportation sector rose 0.7% (2.8%
        y/y), which followed a 1.7% April jump. The broad-based gain reflected a
        2.7% increase (-5.2% y/y) in orders for computers &amp; electronic
        products. Communications equipment orders jumped 12.6% (19.0% y/y) and computers &amp; related products
        gained 1.0% (-15.1% y/y). Orders for electrical equipment strengthened
        by 1.4% (-2.3% y/y) while machinery orders rose 1.2% (6.5% y/y). Primary
        metal orders gained 0.9% (6.0% y/y) but orders for fabricated metals
        were off 0.9% (+2.7% y/y). Nondefense capital
        goods orders surged for a second month. The 9.3% gain (15.9% y/y) added
        to its 3.5% April rise. Orders excluding aircraft &amp; parts, a measure
        of &quot;core&quot; business investment, gained 1.1% (3.2% y/y), the
        third consecutive month of a similar increase.</p>
        <p>Shipments of durable goods improved 1.2% last month (2.4% y/y) to the series'
        record high. Transportation
        sector shipments jumped 3.6% last month and rose 7.5% y/y.
        Outside of the transportation sector, shipments ticked up 0.2% (0.3%
        y/y). Nondefense capital goods shipments recovered 6.0% (4.5% y/y) to a
        record high;
        excluding aircraft, they gained 1.7% (1.6% y/y).</p>
        <p>Unfilled orders for durable goods rose 0.8% (3.1% y/y) in May.
        Outside of the transportation sector, backlogs gained 0.8% (-0.8% y/y).
        Inventories of durable goods ticked up 0.1% (3.1% y/y) last month.
        Excluding transportation, inventories also nudged up 0.1% (0.2% y/y).</p>
        <p>The durable goods figures are available in Haver's <b>USECON </b>database.
        The Action Economics consensus forecast figure is in the <b>AS1REPNA</b>
        database.&nbsp;</p>
        
  <p><a href="/comment/130625c_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130625c.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130625d_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130625d.png"></a></p>
      <p>&nbsp;</p>


<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
        
        
          <thead>
            <tr>
              <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Durable Goods NAICS
                Classification</th>
              <th scope="col" >May</th>
              <th scope="col" >Apr</th>
              <th scope="col" >Mar</th>
              <th scope="col" >Y/Y</th>
              <th scope="col" >2012</th>
              <th scope="col" >2011</th>
              <th scope="col" >2010</th>
            </tr>
          </thead>
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td class="firstcol" >New Orders</td>
              <td>3.6</td>
              <td>3.6</td>
              <td>-5.9</td>
              <td>7.6</td>
              <td>4.1</td>
              <td>11.0</td>
              <td>23.2</td>
            </tr>
            <tr class="odd">
              <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Transportation</td>
              <td>10.2</td>
              <td>8.3</td>
              <td>-15.0</td>
              <td>19.2</td>
              <td>8.9</td>
              <td>14.9</td>
              <td>49.5</td>
            </tr>
            <tr class="odd">
              <td class="firstcol" >Total Excluding Transportation</td>
              <td>0.7</td>
              <td>1.7</td>
              <td>-1.6</td>
              <td>2.8</td>
              <td>2.1</td>
              <td>9.5</td>
              <td>15.2</td>
            </tr>
            <tr class="odd">
              <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Nondefense Capital Goods</td>
              <td>9.3</td>
              <td>3.5</td>
              <td>-8.9</td>
              <td>15.9</td>
              <td>3.7</td>
              <td>15.3</td>
              <td>27.5</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding
                Aircraft</td>
              <td>1.1</td>
              <td>1.2</td>
              <td>1.1</td>
              <td>3.2</td>
              <td>2.1</td>
              <td>11.6</td>
              <td>12.9</td>
            </tr>
            <tr class="odd">
              <td class="firstcol" >Shipments</td>
              <td>1.2</td>
              <td>-0.6</td>
              <td>0.9</td>
              <td>2.4</td>
              <td>6.4</td>
              <td>9.4</td>
              <td>11.0</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td class="firstcol" >Inventories</td>
              <td>0.1</td>
              <td>0.3</td>
              <td>-0.1</td>
              <td>3.1</td>
              <td>4.5</td>
              <td>10.8</td>
              <td>9.4</td>
            </tr>
            <tr class="odd">
              <td class="firstcol" >Unfilled Orders</td>
              <td>0.8</td>
              <td>0.3</td>
              <td>-0.6</td>
              <td>3.1</td>
              <td>3.7</td>
              <td>10.0</td>
              <td>5.2</td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>


</html>

Improvement in new orders is broadening within the factory sector. New orders for durable goods jumped 3.6% (7.6% y/y) during May following a like increase in April, initially reported as 3.3%. A 2.5% rise in orders for last month had [...]

U.S. Durable Goods Orders Strength Is Broad-based

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	  <br>
      
      
      <p></p>

     
	  <p><a href="/comment/130624d_big.png" name="modal"><img class="large" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130624d.png" align="left"></a>


 The IFO headline index advanced this month on the strength of improved expectations as the current index toppled back month-to-month and increased its year-over-year drop compared to May.
</p><p>
In the table we present the sector diffusion-version readings for business climate. The overall climate reading rose in June to net 4.4 from 4.1 in May. In diffusion terms the current index fell to 7.5 in June from a net of 8.6 in May as expectations rose to 1.4 from -0.4. The All-Sector reading for climate stands in the 75th percentile of its historic queue, higher only about 25% of the time - a reasonably firm perch. Current conditions are slightly better positioned in the 76the percentile of their queue with expectations lagging and standing in the 64th percentile of their historic queue. 
</p><p>
Viewed by sector, only manufacturing improved this month, rising from a raw net reading of 6.1 in May to a net of 7.8 in June. Construction slipped to 1.0 from 1.2 as wholesaling and retailing each switched from net positive to net negative territory. Wholesaling posted a reading of -1 in June down from +1.7 in May as retailing slid to -1.4 from +0.1 in May. Despite the slippage construction still stands at the relative strongest ranking in its queue among sectors at the 97th percentile, followed by Retailing in the 80th percentile and wholesaling in the 80th percentile. Manufacturing stands in the 53rd percentile of its range barely above its historic median level (queue standing of 50). 
</p><p>
The chart shows that Germany saw a rather rapid improvement in its business metrics early last year. Since April of last year, however, the improvement has lost some footing and has been moving sideways.
</p><p>
The current index is lower month to month and is lower than its Feb (2013) reading but is higher than most readings back to September of last year. Expectations are up this month but are below February and March levels. Still the index is equal to or higher than most readings back until July of 2011. 
</p><p>
The German economy is well described by the path of the indices in the chart above. It recovered from the financial crisis, then its gains slowed and it began to show sporadic declines in some sectors and has since started to mend but it still struggling with that. All in all the German economy is still growing, but PMI metrics on German MFG show a legacy of declines. Germany continues to be the best-performing large country in EMU yet it is still faced with challenges. German elections have kept German policy largely unchanged since late last year. 
</p><p>
The conservative Bundesbank approach to ECB policy got a boost today when the BIS (Bank for International Settlements) pronounced that extra monetary stimulus could not make up for weak growth and the errant fiscal policy. The BIS argued that excessively accommodative monetary policies had taken the heat off some countries that have not made the full scope of fiscal change that they should have implemented. With this the ears of our representatives in the US Congress should be stinging.  
</p><p>
This debate has been alive and well (or not so well...) in the US for some time. The BIS noted that central banks could do whatever is necessary form their end to try to restore growth but that might not be enough (thereby turning on of Draghi's pledge of last year into an oxymoron- what if banks do all they can" but if that's not enough?). 
</p><p>
After various cycles of boom, bust, and recovery in the last several years Germany is now experiencing a sort of a pause The German economy, like most of Europe, is still not in the place it would like to be. Currently the world growth environment is an issue with policy risk in China seeming to have reached some new heights and with an ostensible US move in the works to scale back on its QE making markets very nervous. That is making it a difficult environment for all central banks to make decisions. As market instability causes central banks to re-inspect their assumptions that economic conditions were stabilizing...Markets are not encouraged by the loss in guidance and presence of uncertainty where policy certainty once dominated the landscape.  
</p>
 
 
 <p><img border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130624.png" width="768" height="614"></p>
 
  </html>

The IFO headline index advanced this month on the strength of improved expectations as the current index toppled back month-to-month and increased its year-over-year drop compared to May. In the table we present the sector diffusion- [...]

IFO German Index Advances

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>
    
 <p><a href="/comment/130624a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130624a.png" align="left"></a>
   
      The Chicago Federal Reserve indicated that its National Activity Index
      (CFNAI) remained negative last month. The figure improved, however, to
      -0.30 from a little-revised -0.52 in April. The three-month moving average
      deteriorated -0.43, its lowest reading since October. During the last ten
      years, there has been a 79% correlation between the Chicago Fed Index and
      the q/q change in real GDP.</p>
      <p>The Production &amp; Income component showed the greatest m/m
      improvement with a recovery to -0.10. The Employment, Unemployment &amp;
      Hours series improved to 0.01 and also recovered its April decline. The Personal
      Consumption &amp; Housing reading was stable at -0.17. Sales, Inventories
      &amp; Inventories deteriorated to -0.04. The Chicago Fed reported that
      during May, 33 of the 85 individual indicators made positive contributions
      to the overall index while 52 made negative contributions.</p>
      <p>The CFNAI is a weighted average of 85 indicators of national economic
      activity. It is constructed to have an average value of zero and a
      standard deviation of one. Since economic activity tends toward trend
      growth rate over time, a positive index reading corresponds to growth
      above trend and a negative index reading corresponds to growth below
      trend.</p>
      <p>The Chicago Federal Reserve figures are available in Haver's <b>SURVEYS</b>
      database.&nbsp;</p>
      <p><b>Managing Economic Development in Times of Fiscal Uncertainty</b>
      from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago can be found <a href="http://chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2013/cfljuly2013_312a.pdf">here</a>.</p>
      
      
   <p><a href="/comment/130624b_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130624b.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130624c_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130624c.png"></a></p>
      <p>&nbsp;</p>


<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

       <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col">Chicago Federal Reserve
              Bank</th>
            <th  scope="col">May</th>
            <th  scope="col">Apr</th>
            <th  scope="col">Mar</th>
            <th  scope="col">May'12</th>
            <th  scope="col">2012</th>
            <th  scope="col">2011</th>
            <th  scope="col">2010</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol">CFNAI</td>
            <td>-0.30</td>
            <td>-0.52</td>
            <td>-0.48</td>
            <td>-0.12</td>
            <td>-0.08</td>
            <td>-0.08</td>
            <td>0.02</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;3-Month Moving Average</td>
            <td>-0.43</td>
            <td>-0.13</td>
            <td>-0.14</td>
            <td>-0.23</td>
            <td>--</td>
            <td>--</td>
            <td>--</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;Personal Consumption
              &amp; Housing</td>
            <td>-0.17</td>
            <td>-0.17</td>
            <td>-0.16</td>
            <td>-0.25</td>
            <td>-0.22</td>
            <td>-0.30</td>
            <td>-0.30</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;Employment,
              Unemployment &amp; Hours</td>
            <td>0.01</td>
            <td>-0.06</td>
            <td>0.01</td>
            <td>0.09</td>
            <td>0.10</td>
            <td>0.14</td>
            <td>0.03</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;Production &amp; Income</td>
            <td>-0.10</td>
            <td>-0.33</td>
            <td>-0.10</td>
            <td>-0.03</td>
            <td>0.04</td>
            <td>0.05</td>
            <td>0.20</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;Sales, Orders &amp;
              Inventories</td>
            <td>-0.04</td>
            <td>0.03</td>
            <td>-0.24</td>
            <td>0.01</td>
            <td>-0.01</td>
            <td>0.04</td>
            <td>0.09</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      </span>
</body>
</html>


The Chicago Federal Reserve indicated that its National Activity Index (CFNAI) remained negative last month. The figure improved, however, to -0.30 from a little-revised -0.52 in April. The three-month moving average deteriorated [...]

U.S. Chicago Fed National Activity Index Remains Negative

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	  <br>
      
      
      <p></p>

   <p><a href="/comment/130621a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130621a.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130621b_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130621b.png"></a></p>

            <p>Improvement in the overall labor market is evident in May's 7.6%
      unemployment rate. That compares to 7.8% at the end of last year and 8.1%
      during all of 2012. Notable has been the rate's recent decline in states
      where it previously was sticky. Great improvement has been in California
      where May's 8.6% rate of unemployment is two percentage below last year's
      average. Washington also saw great improvement. May's 6.8% unemployment
      rate compared to 8.2% during all of last year. In New York, May's rate of
      7.6% was roughly one full percentage point below last year's average.</p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/130621c_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130621c.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130621d_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130621d.png"></a></p>

      <p>The rate of labor market improvement has lagged in many large states.
      In Texas, for example, while the 6.5% jobless rate is low relative to the
      rest of the country, it's down just slightly from last year's 6.8%
      average. In Illinois, 9.1% joblessness differs little from the 8.9%
      averaged last year. In Tennessee, the current 8.3% unemployment rate is
      actually above last year's 8.0% average. In smaller states, the rate of
      job market improvement also varies. Nevada's 9.5% unemployment rate is
      well below last year's 11.1% average but in neighboring Arizona, 7.8%
      unemployment is down just modestly from last year's 8.3%.</p>
      <p>The household employment survey also produces data on individual
      metropolitan areas. These figures, in a few circumstances, differ widely
      from the state numbers. Florida's 7.1% unemployment rate, for example, is
      a far cry from the 9.3% in the Miami metro area. Michigan's 8.4% rate also
      is under the 9.5% rate around Detroit. New York state's 7.6% rate lags the
      8.3% in New York City while California's 8.6% rate is under 9.6% around
      Los Angeles. Running close to one another are the Illinois unemployment
      rate of 9.1% and the 9.3% rate around Chicago. Also, Ohio's 7.0%
      unemployment rate is near Cleveland's of 6.9%. Working the other way,
      Washington state's 6.8% jobless rate by far exceeds Seattle's 4.7%.</p>
      <p>State unemployment figures are available in Haver's <b>EMPLR</b>
      database.
            </p>

   <p><a href="/comment/130621e_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130621e.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130621f_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130621f.png"></a></p>
      <p>&nbsp;</p>


<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >State Unemployment
              Rate</th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>May</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>April</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2012</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2011</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2010</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Labor Force</b></th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" ><b>Total U.S.</b></td>
            <td  >7.6%</td>
            <td  >7.5%</td>
            <td  >8.1%</td>
            <td  >8.9%</td>
            <td  >9.6%</td>
            <td  >155.7 mil.</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="grey3">
            <td class="firstcol" ><b>Ten States With Highest
              Jobless Rate</b></td>
            <td  ></td>
            <td  ></td>
            <td  ></td>
            <td  ></td>
            <td  ></td>
            <td  ></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada</td>
            <td  >9.5</td>
            <td  >9.6</td>
            <td  >11.1</td>
            <td  >13.2</td>
            <td  >13.8</td>
            <td  >1.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol"  >&nbsp;&nbsp;Illinois</td>
            <td  >9.1</td>
            <td  >9.3</td>
            <td  >8.9</td>
            <td  >9.7</td>
            <td  >10.4</td>
            <td  >9.6</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol"  >&nbsp;&nbsp;Mississippi</td>
            <td  >9.1</td>
            <td  >9.1</td>
            <td  >9.1</td>
            <td  >10.5</td>
            <td  >10.5</td>
            <td  >1.3</td>
            
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol"  >&nbsp;&nbsp;North Carolina</td>
            <td  >8.8</td>
            <td  >8.9</td>
            <td  >9.5</td>
            <td  >10.3</td>
            <td  >10.8</td>
            <td  >4.7</td>
            
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol"  >&nbsp;&nbsp;California</td>
            <td  >8.6</td>
            <td  >9.0</td>
            <td  >10.5</td>
            <td  >11.8</td>
            <td  >12.3</td>
            <td  >18.6</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol"  >&nbsp;&nbsp;New Jersey</td>
            <td  >8.6</td>
            <td  >8.7</td>
            <td  >9.5</td>
            <td  >9.3</td>
            <td  >9.6</td>
            <td  >4.6</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol"  >&nbsp;&nbsp;Georgia</td>
            <td  >8.3</td>
            <td  >8.2</td>
            <td  >9.0</td>
            <td  >9.9</td>
            <td  >10.2</td>
            <td  >4.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Indiana</td>
            <td  >8.3</td>
            <td  >8.5</td>
            <td  >8.4</td>
            <td  >9.0</td>
            <td  >10.1</td>
            <td  >3.2</td>
            
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Tennessee</td>
            <td  >8.3</td>
            <td  >8.0</td>
            <td  >8.0</td>
            <td  >9.3</td>
            <td  >9.8</td>
            <td  >3.1</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;South Carolina</td>
            <td  >8.0</td>
            <td  >8.0</td>
            <td  >9.1</td>
            <td  >10.4</td>
            <td  >11.2</td>
            <td  >2.2</td>
            
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      <br>
<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >States With Lowest
              Jobless Rate</th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>May</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>April</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2012</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2011</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2010</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Labor Force</b></th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;New Hampshire</td>
            <td  >5.3%</td>
            <td  >5.5%</td>
            <td  >5.5%</td>
            <td  >5.5%</td>
            <td  >6.1%</td>
            <td  >0.7 mil.</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Minnesota</td>
            <td  >5.3</td>
            <td  >5.3</td>
            <td  >5.6</td>
            <td  >6.5</td>
            <td  >7.3</td>
            <td  >3.0</td>
           </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Virginia</td>
            <td  >5.3</td>
            <td  >5.2</td>
            <td  >5.9</td>
            <td  >6.5</td>
            <td  >7.1</td>
            <td  >4.2</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Wyoming</td>
            <td  >4.6</td>
            <td  >4.8</td>
            <td  >5.4</td>
            <td  >6.1</td>
            <td  >7.0</td>
            <td  >0.3</td>
           </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Utah</td>
            <td  >4.6</td>
            <td  >4.7</td>
            <td  >5.7</td>
            <td  >6.9</td>
            <td  >8.1</td>
            <td  >1.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
             <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Iowa</td>
            <td  >4.6</td>
            <td  >4.7</td>
            <td  >5.2</td>
            <td  >5.9</td>
            <td  >6.3</td>
            <td  >1.6</td>
            
          </tr>
          <tr>
             <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Vermont</td>
            <td  >4.1</td>
            <td  >4.0</td>
            <td  >5.0</td>
            <td  >5.6</td>
            <td  >6.4</td>
            <td  >0.4</td>
            
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;South Dakota</td>
            <td  >4.0</td>
            <td  >4.1</td>
            <td  >4.4</td>
            <td  >4.8</td>
            <td  >5.1</td>
            <td  >0.4</td>
            
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Nebraska</td>
            <td  >3.8</td>
            <td  >3.7</td>
            <td  >3.9</td>
            <td  >4.5</td>
            <td  >4.7</td>
            <td  >1.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;North Dakota</td>
            <td  >3.2</td>
            <td  >3.3</td>
            <td  >3.1</td>
            <td  >3.5</td>
            <td  >3.8</td>
            <td  >0.4</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      <br>
<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" ><b>Jobless Rate In Other Selected
              Large States</b>
            </td><th scope="col" ><b>May</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>April</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2012</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2011</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2010</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Labor Force</b></th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol"  >&nbsp;&nbsp;Connecticut</td>
            <td  >8.0%</td>
            <td  >8.0%</td>
            <td  >8.3%</td>
            <td  >8.9%</td>
            <td  >9.3%</td>
            <td  >1.8 mil.</td>
            
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Arizona</td>
            <td  >7.8</td>
            <td  >7.9</td>
            <td  >8.3</td>
            <td  >9.4</td>
            <td  >10.4</td>
            <td  >3.0</td>
            
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol"  >&nbsp;&nbsp;New York</td>
            <td  >7.6</td>
            <td  >7.8</td>
            <td  >8.5</td>
            <td  >8.3</td>
            <td  >8.6</td>
            <td  >9.6</td>
            
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Florida</td>
            <td  >7.1</td>
            <td  >7.2</td>
            <td  >8.6</td>
            <td  >10.3</td>
            <td  >11.3</td>
            <td  >9.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Wisconsin</td>
            <td  >7.0</td>
            <td  >7.1</td>
            <td  >6.9</td>
            <td  >7.6</td>
            <td  >8.4</td>
            <td  >3.1</td>
            
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Ohio</td>
            <td  >7.0</td>
            <td  >7.0</td>
            <td  >7.2</td>
            <td  >8.6</td>
            <td  >10.0</td>
            <td  >5.7</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Colorado</td>
            <td  >6.9</td>
            <td  >6.9</td>
            <td  >8.0</td>
            <td  >8.6</td>
            <td  >9.0</td>
            <td  >2.8</td>
            
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
              <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Washington</td>
            <td  >6.8</td>
            <td  >7.0</td>
            <td  >8.2</td>
            <td  >9.2</td>
            <td  >9.9</td>
            <td  >3.5</td>
            
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Maryland</td>
            <td  >6.7</td>
            <td  >6.5</td>
            <td  >6.8</td>
            <td  >7.3</td>
            <td  >7.8</td>
            <td  >3.1</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Texas</td>
            <td  >6.5</td>
            <td  >6.4</td>
            <td  >6.8</td>
            <td  >8.0</td>
            <td  >8.2</td>
            <td  >12.8</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      


</html>

Improvement in the overall labor market is evident in May's 7.6% unemployment rate. That compares to 7.8% at the end of last year and 8.1% during all of 2012. Notable has been the rate's recent decline in states where it previously [...]

State Unemployment Rates Continue Lower but Vary Greatly

<html>

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<title>U</title>
</head>

<body>

<div id="content">
  <div id="rightside">
    <div id="entire" class="col">
      <br>
      <span id="articletext">
      <p>Improvement in the overall labor market is evident in May's 7.6%
      unemployment rate. That compares to 7.8% at the end of last year and 8.1%
      during all of 2012. Notable has been the rate's recent decline in states
      where it previously was sticky. Great improvement has been in California
      where May's 8.6% rate of unemployment is two percentage below last year's
      average. Washington also saw great improvement. May's 6.8% unemployment
      rate compared to 8.2% during all of last year. In New York, May's rate of
      7.6% was roughly one full percentage point below last year's average.</p>
      </span>
      <p>The rate of labor market improvement has lagged in many large states.<span id="articletext">
      In Texas, for example, while the 6.5% jobless rate is low relative to the
      rest of the country, it's down just slightly from last year's 6.8%
      average. In Illinois, 9.1% joblessness differs little from the 8.9%
      averaged last year. In Tennessee, the current 8.3% unemployment rate is
      actually above last year's 8.0% average. In smaller states, the rate of
      job market improvement also varies. Nevada's 9.5% unemployment rate is
      well below last year's 11.1% average but in neighboring Arizona, 7.8%
      unemployment is down just modestly from last year's 8.3%.
      <p>The household employment survey also produces data on individual
      metropolitan areas. These figures, in a few circumstances, differ widely
      from the state numbers. Florida's 7.1% unemployment rate, for example, is
      a far cry from the 9.3% in the Miami metro area. Michigan's 8.4% rate also
      is under the 9.5% rate around Detroit. New York state's 7.6% rate lags the
      8.3% in New York City while California's 8.6% rate is under 9.6% around
      Los Angeles. Running close to one another are the Illinois unemployment
      rate of 9.1% and the 9.3% rate around Chicago. Also, Ohio's 7.0%
      unemployment rate is near Cleveland's of 6.9%. Working the other way,
      Washington state's 6.8% jobless rate by far exceeds Seattle's 4.7%.</p>
      <p>State unemployment figures are available in Haver's <b>EMPLR</b>
      database. </p>
      <table class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0" width="1231">
        <colgroup>
          <col>
          <col>
          <col>
          <col>
          <col>
          <col>
          <col>
          <col>
        </colgroup>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" ? width="527">State Unemployment
              Rate</th>
            <th scope="col" width="116"><b>May</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="116"><b>April</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="117"><b>2012</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="117"><b>2011</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="117"><b>2010</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="117"><b>Labor Force</b></th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" ? width="527"><b>Total U.S.</b></td>
            <td align="center" width="116">7.6%</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">7.5%</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">8.1%</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">8.9%</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">9.6%</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">155.7 mil.</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="grey3">
            <td class="firstcol" ? width="527"><b>Ten States With Highest
              Jobless Rate</b></td>
            <td align="center" width="116"></td>
            <td align="center" width="116"></td>
            <td align="center" width="117"></td>
            <td align="center" width="117"></td>
            <td align="center" width="117"></td>
            <td align="center" width="117"></td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" ? width="527">&nbsp;&nbsp;Nevada</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">9.5</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">9.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">11.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">13.2</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">13.8</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">1.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" ? width="527">&nbsp;&nbsp;Illinois</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">9.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">9.3</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">8.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">9.7</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">10.4</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">9.6</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <span id="articletext">
            <td class="firstcol" ? width="527">&nbsp;&nbsp;Mississippi</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">9.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">9.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">9.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">10.5</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">10.5</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">1.3</td>
            </span>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <span id="articletext">
            <td class="firstcol" ? width="527">&nbsp;&nbsp;North Carolina</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">8.8</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">8.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">9.5</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">10.3</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">10.8</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">4.7</td>
            </span>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" ? width="527">&nbsp;&nbsp;California</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">8.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">9.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">10.5</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">11.8</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">12.3</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">18.6</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" ? width="527">&nbsp;&nbsp;New Jersey</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">8.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">8.7</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">9.5</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">9.3</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">9.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">4.6</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" ? width="527">&nbsp;&nbsp;Georgia</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">8.3</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">8.2</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">9.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">9.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">10.2</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">4.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <span id="articletext">
            <td class="firstcol" width="518">&nbsp;&nbsp;Indiana</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">8.3</td>
            <td width="129" align="center">8.5</td>
            <td width="117" align="center">8.4</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">9.0</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">10.1</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">3.2</td>
            </span>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="518">&nbsp; Tennessee</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">8.3</td>
            <td width="129" align="center">8.0</td>
            <td width="117" align="center">8.0</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">9.3</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">9.8</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">3.1</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <span id="articletext">
            <td class="firstcol" width="518">&nbsp;&nbsp;South Carolina</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">8.0</td>
            <td width="129" align="center">8.0</td>
            <td width="117" align="center">9.1</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">10.4</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">11.2</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">2.2</td>
            </span>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      <br>
      <table class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0" width="1240">
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="524">States With Lowest
              Jobless Rate</th>
            <th scope="col" width="121"><b>May</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="121"><b>April</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="121"><b>2012</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="121"><b>2011</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="122"><b>2010</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="122"><b>Labor Force</b></th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <span id="articletext">
            <td class="firstcol" width="524">&nbsp;&nbsp;New Hampshire</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">5.3%</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">5.5%</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">5.5%</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">5.5%</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">6.1%</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">0.7 mil.</td>
            </span>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <span id="articletext">
            <td class="firstcol" width="524">&nbsp;&nbsp;Minnesota</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">5.3</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">5.3</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">5.6</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">6.5</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">7.3</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">3.0</td>
            </span>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="524">&nbsp;&nbsp;Virginia</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">5.3</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">5.2</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">5.9</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">6.5</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">7.1</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">4.2</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <span id="articletext">
            <td class="firstcol" width="524">&nbsp;&nbsp;Wyoming</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">4.6</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">4.8</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">5.4</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">6.1</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">7.0</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">0.3</td>
            </span>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="524">&nbsp;&nbsp;Utah</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">4.6</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">4.7</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">5.7</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">6.9</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">8.1</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">1.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <span id="articletext">
            <td class="firstcol" width="524">&nbsp;&nbsp;Iowa</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">4.6</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">4.7</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">5.2</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">5.9</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">6.3</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">1.6</td>
            </span>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <span id="articletext">
            <td class="firstcol" width="524">&nbsp;&nbsp;Vermont</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">4.1</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">4.0</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">5.0</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">5.6</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">6.4</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">0.4</td>
            </span>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <span id="articletext">
            <td class="firstcol" width="524">&nbsp;&nbsp;South Dakota</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">4.0</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">4.1</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">4.4</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">4.8</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">5.1</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">0.4</td>
            </span>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="524">&nbsp;&nbsp;Nebraska</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">3.8</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">3.7</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">3.9</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">4.5</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">4.7</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">1.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="524">&nbsp;&nbsp;North Dakota</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">3.2</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">3.3</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">3.1</td>
            <td width="121" align="center">3.5</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">3.8</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">0.4</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      <br>
      <table class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0" width="1231">
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="518"><b>Jobless Rate In Other Selected
              Large States</b>
            </td><th scope="col" width="122"><b>May</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="129"><b>April</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="117"><b>2012</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="118"><b>2011</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="118"><b>2010</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="118"><b>Labor Force</b></th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <span id="articletext">
            <td class="firstcol" ? width="527">&nbsp;&nbsp;Connecticut</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">8.0%</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">8.0%</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">8.3%</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">8.9%</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">9.3%</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">1.8 mil.</td>
            </span>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <span id="articletext">
            <td class="firstcol" width="518">&nbsp;&nbsp;Arizona</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">7.8</td>
            <td width="129" align="center">7.9</td>
            <td width="117" align="center">8.3</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">9.4</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">10.4</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">3.0</td>
            </span>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <span id="articletext">
            <td class="firstcol" ? width="527">&nbsp;&nbsp;New York</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">7.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="116">7.8</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">8.5</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">8.3</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">8.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="117">9.6</td>
            </span>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="518">&nbsp;&nbsp;Florida</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">7.1</td>
            <td width="129" align="center">7.2</td>
            <td width="117" align="center">8.6</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">10.3</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">11.3</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">9.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <span id="articletext">
            <td class="firstcol" width="518">&nbsp;&nbsp;Wisconsin</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">7.0</td>
            <td width="129" align="center">7.1</td>
            <td width="117" align="center">6.9</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">7.6</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">8.4</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">3.1</td>
            </span>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="518">&nbsp;&nbsp;Ohio</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">7.0</td>
            <td width="129" align="center">7.0</td>
            <td width="117" align="center">7.2</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">8.6</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">10.0</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">5.7</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <span id="articletext">
            <td class="firstcol" width="518">&nbsp;&nbsp;Colorado</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">6.9</td>
            <td width="129" align="center">6.9</td>
            <td width="117" align="center">8.0</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">8.6</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">9.0</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">2.8</td>
            </span>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <span id="articletext">
            <td class="firstcol" width="518">&nbsp;&nbsp;Washington</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">6.8</td>
            <td width="129" align="center">7.0</td>
            <td width="117" align="center">8.2</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">9.2</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">9.9</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">3.5</td>
            </span>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="518">&nbsp;&nbsp;Maryland</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">6.7</td>
            <td width="129" align="center">6.5</td>
            <td width="117" align="center">6.8</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">7.3</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">7.8</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">3.1</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="518">&nbsp;&nbsp;Texas</td>
            <td width="122" align="center">6.5</td>
            <td width="129" align="center">6.4</td>
            <td width="117" align="center">6.8</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">8.0</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">8.2</td>
            <td width="118" align="center">12.8</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      </span>
    </p></div>
  </div>
</div>

<div id="footer" class="sprites">
  <ul>
  </ul>
</div>

</body>

</html>


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	  <br>
      
      
      <p></p>

   <p><a href="/comment/130620m_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130620m.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130620j_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130620j.png"></a></p>
      
      <p>The index of Leading Economic Indicators, published by the Conference
      Board, ticked up 0.1% (2.0% y/y) during May to 95.2, another high for the
      economic recovery. The gain followed an upwardly revised 0.8% April
      increase, last month reported as 0.6%. A 0.2% rise had been expected for
      April. Just 45 percent of the component series had a positive influence on
      the index. A steeper interest rate yield curve, higher stock prices and
      the leading credit index increased the total. These were offset by a lower
      ISM new orders index, fewer building permits and higher initial claims for
      unemployment insurance.</p>
      <p>The index of coincident indicators gained 0.2% (1.5% y/y) after an
      unrevised 0.1% April uptick. Higher payroll employment, improved personal
      income less transfers and more manufacturing and trade sales had positive
      influences on the index. Industrial production was unchanged.</p>
      <p>The index of lagging economic indicators increased 0.3% (3.4% y/y)
      after a minimal 0.1% April rise. Roughly two-thirds of the component
      series rose paced by more commercial &amp; industrial loans outstanding.</p>
      <p>Another leading economic series is the ratio of coincident-to-lagging
      indicators. It measures how the economy is performing versus its excesses.
      The figure fell 0.2% (-1.9% y/y) last month to its lowest level of the
      economic expansion.</p>
      <p>The Conference Board figures are available in Haver's <b>BCI</b>
      database; the components are available there, and most are also in <b>USECON</b>.
      The forecast figures for the Consensus are in the <b>AS1REPNA</b>
      database. Visit the Conference Board's <a href="http://www.conference-board.org/">site</a>
      for coverage of leading indicator series from around the world.&nbsp;</p>
      <p>The <b>economic projections</b> which accompanied yesterday's FOMC
      meeting are available <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20130619.pdf">here</a>.</p>
      
   <p><a href="/comment/130620k_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130620k.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130620l_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130620l.png"></a></p>
      
      
      
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
        
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col">Business Cycle
              Indicators (%)</th>
            <th scope="col">May</th>
            <th scope="col">Apr</th>
            <th scope="col">Mar</th>
            <th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
            <th scope="col">2012</th>
            <th scope="col">2011</th>
            <th scope="col">2010</th>
          </tr>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol">Leading</td>
            <td>0.1</td>
            <td>0.8</td>
            <td>-0.3</td>
            <td>2.0</td>
            <td>2.0</td>
            <td>5.1</td>
            <td>8.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol">Coincident</td>
            <td>0.2</td>
            <td>0.1</td>
            <td>0.1</td>
            <td>1.5</td>
            <td>2.1</td>
            <td>2.4</td>
            <td>1.2</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol">Lagging</td>
            <td>0.3</td>
            <td>0.1</td>
            <td>0.3</td>
            <td>3.4</td>
            <td>3.6</td>
            <td>2.7</td>
            <td>-3.1</td>
                            </tr>
              </tbody>
            
            

            
         </html>

The index of Leading Economic Indicators, published by the Conference Board, ticked up 0.1% (2.0% y/y) during May to 95.2, another high for the economic recovery. The gain followed an upwardly revised 0.8% April increase, last month [...]

U.S. Leading Economic Indicators Rise on Financial Series' Strength

Resilient US economy pushing up Blue Chip 2026 outlook

US and China big leaders in adoption of AI models

Robust US demand for advanced technology products

China's export growth rotating away from the US

More pronounced upward revisions in countries more exposed to AI investment

Stable job openings and hiring rates point to cautious hiring

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

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

Michael J. Moran

260213L.jpg

260213M.jpg

The consumer price index rose 0.2% in January, slower than the expected increase of 0.3% (and it rounded up to reach the published advance – 0.17% when calculated with more precision; annual rate of 2.04%). The latest monthly increase left the year-over-year at 2.4%, down from a recent high of 3.0% in September and bested by only one other recent reading: 2.3% in April of last year.

A drop of 1.5% in energy prices helped to contain the headline index. The drop was led by sharp retreats in the prices of both fuel oil and gasoline (off 5.7% and 3.2%, respectively). Energy prices have jumped around from month-to-month, but they have stayed within a narrow range in the past two years. Food prices rose 0.2% in January after a surge of 0.7% in the prior month. The food category experienced severe pressure during the inflation burst in 2022 (peak of 11.4%). Pressure settled in 2024, with annual food inflation easing to a low of 2.0% in August of that year. However, prices picked up again in 2025, with the year-over-year increase moving to 3.2% in August and staying close to that pace in subsequent months. The year-over-year increase in January totaled 2.9%.

The core component (ex food and energy) rose 0.3% in January, one of the sharpest advances of the past year or so. However, the increase was not especially troubling, as it was influenced by a jump of 6.5% in airfares, which added nearly a full tenth percentage point to the core component (0.08%). Airfares often move erratically, and the ups and downs in the past few years have left little net change. Discounting, most likely, will unfold in coming months. Even with the jump in airfares, the year-over-year increase in core prices moved to a new low for the current period of deceleration (2.5%). Core inflation appeared to be picking up in the spring and summer of last year (a recent peak of 3.1% in August), but pressure has eased since then.

The source of the waxing and waning in core prices lies primarily in the goods component of the CPI. Goods prices were declining noticeably in the first half of 2024 (deflation!), but, they began to shift direction in the second half of 2024 and moved to price increases in 2025. The upward trend seems to have peaked at 1.5% in September and October, with the year-over-year change easing to 1.1 percent in January. Service prices have been decelerating over the past few years, but the rate of decline began to slow last year, and the latest months have shown no further improvement, stuck at 3.0% in the past three months.

Within the core component, the movement of housing costs is notable. Rental rates rose 0.2% in January, a marked shift from the experience in 2022 and 2023, when increases in excess of 0.6% were common.  This component jumps around from month-to-month, but the downtrend is unmistakable. After peaking at 8.2% in 2022, the latest year-over-increase totaled 3.0% in January.

The cost of electricity is now gathering the attention of the public and politicians because of the pressure being exerted by the infrastructure requirements of artificial-intelligence. Costs were tame in January (down 0.1%), but increases have largely been the norm in the past year or so. The year-over-year increase totaled 6.3% in January, down from 7.0% in November but still a challenge for many households. Many observers are expecting more upward pressure down the road. Some observers perhaps recall (and fear) the experience in 2022, when electricity inflation touched 15.8%.

The Consumer Price figures can be found in Haver's **USECON** database. The expectations figure is contained in the **AS1REPNA** database.

260213N.jpg

260213O.jpg

- The year-over-year change in the headline index moved to the bottom of its recent range.
- The annual change in the core index moved to a new low for the current cycle.

Consumer Price Index: Slow, but Steady, Deceleration

Andrew Cates

**The Blue Chip Growth Consensus**
The first chart this week highlights a striking feature of recent forecast revisions: the outperformance of Asia, and Taiwan in particular. Over the past six months, Blue Chip panelists have upgraded their 2026 GDP growth forecasts most aggressively for Taiwan, far outpacing revisions elsewhere. This reflects the central role Taiwan plays in the global AI supply chain, especially in advanced semiconductors, where demand linked to data centres, AI accelerators and high-performance computing continues to strengthen. More broadly, positive revisions across parts of Asia suggest that the current AI-driven investment cycle is not just a US story, but one that is increasingly feeding through global tech supply chains, boosting exports, industrial production and capital spending across the region. In contrast, forecast changes elsewhere remain far more muted, underscoring how tightly the near-term growth impulse from AI is concentrated in economies most directly exposed to the semiconductor and hardware build-out.

260212Z1.jpg

**The Blue Chip Inflation Consensus**
The second chart highlights a growing theme of cross-country divergence, this time through the lens of inflation and monetary policy. Recent changes to Blue Chip CPI forecasts for 2026 show upward revisions in economies such as Japan, Australia and Canada, where inflation pressures are proving more persistent and policy tightening is either already under way or increasingly expected. In contrast, inflation forecasts in the US have been revised lower, consistent with softer recent data and reinforcing expectations of further monetary easing. The result is an increasingly asymmetric global policy backdrop: some central banks are still leaning against residual inflation risks, while others are preparing to shift toward rate cuts. This divergence, moreover, could matter more for global capital flows, exchange rates and financial conditions in the period ahead.

260212Z2.jpg

**South Korea’s Semiconductor Trade**
The third chart provides a concrete, high-frequency illustration of the forces underpinning the forecast upgrades seen earlier for Asia. South Korea’s semiconductor exports have surged sharply on a year-on-year basis, marking one of the strongest upswings of the past decade and underscoring the revival of the global tech cycle. This acceleration is closely linked to AI-related demand, particularly for advanced memory chips used in data centres and high-performance computing. Alongside Taiwan, South Korea sits at the core of the AI hardware supply chain, and the strength of semiconductor exports helps explain why growth expectations in parts of Asia have been revised higher so decisively. In this sense, the chart offers a real-economy counterpart to the consensus forecast revisions: the AI boom is not just a financial or expectations story, but one that is already showing up clearly in trade and industrial data across the region.

260212Z3.jpg

**Global Supply Chain Pressures**
The fourth chart places recent inflation dynamics in a broader supply-chain context and offers little evidence that current US tariff policies are materially exacerbating global bottlenecks. The Global Supply Chain Pressure Index has remained close to historical norms in recent months, a sharp contrast with the extreme dislocations seen during the pandemic period. Consistent with this, producer price inflation across advanced economies has remained muted, reinforcing the tight relationship between supply-chain stress and upstream price pressures. While tariffs may still influence relative prices at the margin and contribute to sector-specific adjustments, the data do not point to a broad-based resurgence in supply-chain pressures of the kind that would generate renewed, systemic inflationary pressure.

260212Z4.jpg

**Uncertainty in the US versus Europe** 
The fifth chart highlights a striking shift in the global policy uncertainty landscape. The US news-based economic policy uncertainty index has risen sharply and is now approaching levels more typically associated with Europe — a vivid contrast with the post-GFC and post-pandemic period, when US policy uncertainty was consistently well below European norms. This convergence likely reflects a combination of factors: renewed uncertainty around US trade policy and tariffs, questions over fiscal sustainability and debt dynamics, and growing debate around institutional independence, including the role of the Federal Reserve. At the same time, political polarisation and an increasingly unpredictable policy environment have become more prominent features of the US backdrop. The implications are potentially important for markets. A sustained rise in policy uncertainty would argue for a higher risk premium on US assets, particularly if it begins to influence corporate investment decisions, capital flows or the perceived safe-haven status of US markets.

260212Z5.jpg

**The Global Business Cycle** 
The final chart brings the story together by highlighting a further strengthening in global economic sentiment in February. The Sentix global expectations index moved higher alongside a renewed run of positive economic surprises across a number of major economies, as captured by the Citi Global Economic Surprise Index. This combination points to an environment in which incoming data have consistently exceeded expectations, helping to reinforce investor confidence and support risk appetite. Taken together, the improvement in sentiment and the upside surprise in activity data underscore the constructive macroeconomic backdrop that markets have been responding to in recent months — one characterised by resilient growth, easing inflation pressures and still-supportive financial conditions, even as policy paths and regional dynamics continue to diverge.

260212Z6.jpg

While markets have been unsettled at times by shifting policy expectations, geopolitical noise and questions around valuation, underlying global macroeconomic signals remain broadly supportive. Upgrades to Blue Chip consensus growth forecasts for parts of Asia — led by Taiwan — point to the tangible impact of the AI-driven tech cycle, a theme reinforced by the sharp rebound in semiconductor exports from South Korea (charts 1 and 3). At the same time, revisions to inflation forecasts underline a growing divergence in monetary policy paths, with easing still expected in the US and UK, while tighter stances persist elsewhere (chart 2). Importantly, there is little evidence so far that global supply-chain pressures are re-emerging in a way that would reignite inflation, notwithstanding lingering trade policy tensions (chart 4). Against this backdrop, rising policy uncertainty — particularly in the US — stands out as a potential source of risk, with implications for asset pricing and risk premia (chart 5). Yet the improvement in global sentiment surveys and a continued run of positive economic surprises suggest that markets are responding not just to policy noise, but to a genuinely resilient and improving macroeconomic environment (chart 6).

<iframe data-testid="embed-iframe" style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/6wkBik7cLDk3qoA0p1AKaG?utm_source=generator" width="100%" height="152" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" loading="lazy"></iframe>

Charts of the Week: AI-Led Growth Meets Monetary Divergence

Winnie Tapasanun

260212F17.jpg

260212G17.jpg

Existing home sales fell 8.4% m/m (-4.4% y/y) to a lower-than-expected 3.91 million units (SAAR) in January following a downwardly revised 4.4% gain to 4.27 million in December (previously +5.1%; 4.35 mil.), according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). January sales registered the lowest level since September 2024 and the deepest m/m drop since February 2022, well below the Action Economics Forecast Survey expectation of 4.20 million. Sales were 39.2% below a high of 6.43 million in January 2022 and 40.8% below a peak of 6.60 million in January 2021. The sales fall accompanied a drop in the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate to 6.11% in January, the lowest since September 2022, after declining to 6.20% in December, according to Freddie Mac. The sales figures are based on closings of sales contracts signed over the past couple of months.

Existing single-family home sales slid 9.0% (-4.3% y/y) to 3.53 million units in January, the lowest level since September 2024, after a 4.3% gain to 3.88 million in December. Sales of condos and co-ops fell 2.6% (-5.0% y/y) to 380,000 following a 5.4% December rebound to 390,000.

By region, January existing home sales decreased m/m across all major regions. Sales in the West slumped 10.3% (-7.9% y/y) to 700,000 in January after a 4.0% increase in December, marking the third m/m decline in four months and the lowest level since December 2023. Sales in the South dropped 9.0% (-1.6% y/y) to 1.81 million, the lowest reading since October 2024, reversing a 6.4% December gain. Sales in the Midwest fell 7.1% (-7.1% y/y) to 920,000, the lowest level since September 2024, after a 2.1% December increase. Sales in the Northeast declined 5.9% (-4.0% y/y) to 480,000, the lowest level since June 2025, after rising 2.0% in December and November. The South remained the dominant region, accounting for 46.3% of total U.S. existing home sales.

The median price of all existing homes (NSA) fell 2.0% (+0.9% y/y) to $396,800 in January after a 1.2% decline to $405,100 in December ($405,400 initially), representing the sixth m/m fall in seven months and the lowest level since February 2025. Prices were 8.3% below a high of $432,700 in June 2025. The median price of an existing single-family home, also down for the sixth time in seven months, slid 2.2% (+0.6% y/y) to a one-year-low $400,300 in January after a 1.3% decline to $409,500 in December. The median price of condos and co-ops, up for the third time in four months, rose 0.9% (3.8% y/y) to $364,600, the highest level since August, after a 0.4% December increase to $361,200. Regionally, overall prices fell m/m in the Midwest (-3.6%; +2.3% y/y) and South (-2.3%; +0.1% y/y) in January, but increased m/m in the Northeast (+1.1%; +5.8% y/y) and West (+0.4%; -1.4% y/y).

Inventories of homes for sale weakened further in January. The number of existing homes for sale (NSA) fell 0.8% (+3.4% y/y) to 1.22 million units on top of a 14.6% December plunge to 1.23 million, posting the fourth consecutive m/m fall and the lowest level since January 2025. The supply of homes on the market at the current selling rate (NSA) rose to 3.7 months in January after falling to 3.5 months in December (the lowest since January 2025). The most recent high of 4.6 months was in August 2025, while a record low in supply of 1.6 months was in January 2022.

The data on existing home sales, prices and affordability are compiled by the National Association of Realtors. The data on single-family home sales extend back to February 1968. Total sales and price data and regional sales can be found in Haver's **USECON** database. Regional price and affordability data and national inventory data are available in the **REALTOR** database. Mortgage interest rates can be found in the **WEEKLY** database. The expectations figure is from the Action Economics Forecast Survey, reported in the **AS1REPNA** database.

260212H17.jpg

260212I17.jpg

- January sales -8.4% (-4.4% y/y) to 3.91 mil., below expectations; steepest m/m fall since Feb. ’22.
- Widespread regional m/m declines: West (-10.3%), South (-9.0%), Midwest (-7.1%), Northeast (-5.9%); all regions down y/y.
- Median sales price -2.0% (+0.9% y/y) to $396,800, lowest since Feb. ’25.
- Unsold inventory -0.8% (+3.4% y/y) to 1.22 mil. units, a one-year low; 3.7 months' supply.

U.S. Existing Home Sales Drop in January; Lowest Level Since Sept. ’24

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

260212A50.jpg

260212B50.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance dropped 5,000 to 227,000 in the week of February 7, from 232,000, revised from 231,000, in the week ended January 31. The four-week average rose 7,000 to 219,500 from 212,500. The Action Economics Forecast Survey looked for 225,000 claims to have been filed.

The total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries—also known as “continuing claims”—increased by 21,000 to 1.862 million in the week ending January 31, from 1.841 million, revised from 1.844 million, in the week ending January 24. The four-week moving average stood at 1.847 million in the January 31 week, the lowest level for this average since October 5, 2024, when it was 1.846 million. The prior week was 1.850 million. The insured unemployment rate remained at 1.2% in the week of January 24, unchanged from the previous nine weeks.

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ending January 24, the highest unemployment rates were in Rhode Island (2.95%), New Jersey (2.78%), Massachusetts (2.68%), Minnesota and Washington (both 2.58%), California (2.30%), and Montana (2.21%). The lowest rates were in Florida (0.31%), Arkansas (0.39%), North Carolina (0.43%), Louisiana (0.41%), and Alabama (0.45%). Rates in other notable states include Illinois (2.23%), New York (2.11%), Pennsylvania (1.91%), and Texas (1.16%). 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.

260212C50.jpg

260212D50.jpg

- New claims dropped 5,000 to 227,000.
- Continuing claims rose to 1.862 million.
- The insured unemployment rate remained at 1.2% for the tenth consecutive week.

U.S. Initial Unemployment Claims Declined in Latest Week

260212E.jpg

U.K. GDP slowed to a crawl at the end of the year, with growth at a 0.2% (annualized) rate logged in both the third and fourth quarters as 2025 drew to a close. The year had started with a strong 2.7% growth rate in Q1, which slipped to a 0.8% pace in the second quarter and decelerated to negligible growth at the end of the year.

These quarterly growth rates correspond to higher but obviously declining year over year growth rates. Because the quarterly growth rates diminished as the year progressed, year over year growth to start 2025 was at 1.8%; growth slipped to 1.4% in the second quarter and then to 1.2% in the third quarter. By the end of the year, growth had slipped to 1%.

The quarterly growth rates in the fourth quarter show public spending picked up to a 1.7% annual rate following 1% in the third quarter and erratic behavior in the first two quarters. Capital formation has remained relatively strong but has also oscillated, with first quarter growth at a blowout annual rate of 14.3%, falling to a contraction of 3.1% in Q2, rising back to 4.4% in Q3, and then declining at a 0.5% annual rate in Q4. So the year-over-year growth rates for capital formation during the course of the year only slipped from 4% in the first quarter to 3.6% in the fourth quarter, holding up fairly solidly and indicating strong rates of expansion for capital spending.

Housing, which was firm and strong in Q1 and Q2, slipped to a 0.8% annual rate of growth in the third quarter, and then housing investment fell at a 9.1% annualized rate in the fourth quarter. Year over year trends for housing show mostly low to moderate spending growth for residential investment.

U.K. exports have been floundering quarter-to-quarter, alternating between expanding and contracting; this corresponds to year over year growth rates that steadily diminish. In the first quarter of 2025, exports grew 3.5% year-over-year; that slipped to a 2% growth rate in Q2, then to a 1.5% growth rate in the third quarter. In the fourth quarter, U.K. exports are falling at a 0.5% annual rate of growth.
 
The export pattern contrasts with U.K. imports. They have mostly continued to grow, posting positive growth rates in three of the four quarters, starting the year with 5% quarterly growth and ending the fourth quarter with a 3.3% annual growth rate. Import growth rates have slipped, but not as much as other growth rates in GDP. For example, first quarter import growth was extremely strong at 7.6%; that year over year growth rate slips to 2.1% in Q2, then rises back to 5.3% in Q3, and finishes the year at 2.3%. There is slippage, but still significant growth, and the year began on a really high note.

Domestic demand has been fluctuating. In both quarterly and annual terms, there is unevenness. Quarterly growth rates range from 3.1% at an annual rate in Q1, to a 0.6% and 0.7% annual rate in the middle two quarters of the year; domestic demand ends the fourth quarter with a quarterly growth rate of 2.1% annualized. This causes year-over-year growth to be 2.9% in the first quarter; that falls to 1.2% in the second quarter, rebounds to 2.1% in the third quarter, and ends the year at 1.6% year-over-year.

Domestic demand has consistently been stronger than private consumption and it has been supported by both public consumption and by capital formation. Private consumption in 2025 has been erratic, logging 1.2% quarterly growth, annualized, in the first quarter; growth dropped to 0.2% in Q2, rising back to 1.7% in Q3, and then ending the year at a 0.6% rate of expansion quarter-over-quarter. The year-over-year data showed private consumption slipping but not dramatically, at a pace of 1.1% in the first quarter, up to 1.2% in the second quarter and then logging 0.9% in both the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as domestic demand ended the year stronger.

All of the U.K. growth rates are consistently and substantially below their five year growth rates. The economy continues to have a problem with inflation. Some recent inflation signals, however, suggest that there may be deceleration and progress, but the Bank of England hasn’t been convinced yet, even though Monetary Policy Committee members continue to speak favorably about the prospects for rate reductions ahead. The U.K. also has a corseted fiscal situation as there’s not much flexibility to spend more given its relatively bloated budget. The economy is waffling. The current administration has had its share of political issues, having recently had to eject several members from leadership positions in government. The outlook for growth is still touch and go. The outlook for inflation holds slightly more promise for deescalation. But overall, there is a lot of uncertainty over events and the growth path for the U.K. economy.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

U.S. New Home Sales Rise To Recovery High

French Businessmen See Some Improvement

U.S. Durable Goods Orders Strength Is Broad-based

IFO German Index Advances

U.S. Chicago Fed National Activity Index Remains Negative

State Unemployment Rates Continue Lower but Vary Greatly

State Unemployment Rates Continue Lower but Vary Greatly

U.S. Leading Economic Indicators Rise on Financial Series' Strength