Tom Moeller

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080602a.jpg" width="353">
The Institute of Supply Management (ISM) reported that during May its Composite Index of Manufacturing Sector Activity rose to 49.6 from an unrevised 48.6 in April. The latest was better than Consensus expectations which had been for an unchanged reading m/m. However, the index remained below the break even level for factory sector activity of 50 for the fifth month in the last six.
The index&#39;s average level of 49.0 so far this year was its lowest since early 2003.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080602b.jpg" width="353">
During the last twenty years there has been a 64% correlation between the level of the Composite Index and the three-month growth in factory sector industrial production.
It is appropriate to correlate the ISM index level with factory sector growth because the ISM index is a diffusion index. It measures growth by using all of the positive changes in activity added to one half of the zero change in activity measures.
The new orders index rose slightly m/m to its highest level since November of last year. The reading was, however, near the lowest level since the recession year of 2001. The production index also rose very modestly for the second month. The inventory component and the supplier delivery indexes were roughly unchanged month-to-month.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080602c.jpg" width="353">
The new export orders sub-series rose moderately to 59.5 which was its highest level since early 2004. During the last ten years there has been a 53% correlation between the index and the q/q change in real exports of goods in the GDP accounts.
The employment index was about unchanged at the low reading of 45.5, near its lowest level since mid 2003. During the last twenty years there has been a 67% correlation between the level of the ISM employment index and the three-month growth in factory sector employment.
The prices paid index rose again to its highest level since early 2004. During the last twenty years there has been a 77% correlation between the price index and the three-month change in the PPI for intermediate goods.
The NBER&#39;s Business-Cycle Dating Procedure is available <a href="http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.pdf"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S2/@S201/@S201.HTM">ISM Mfg</a></th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">May &#39;07</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Composite Index</td>
<td>49.6</td>
<td>48.6</td>
<td>52.8</td>
<td>51.1</td>
<td>53.1</td>
<td>54.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; New Orders Index</td>
<td>49.7</td>
<td>46.5</td>
<td>58.6</td>
<td>54.3</td>
<td>55.4</td>
<td>57.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Employment Index</td>
<td>45.5</td>
<td>45.4</td>
<td>51.4</td>
<td>50.5</td>
<td>51.7</td>
<td>53.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid Index (NSA)</td>
<td>87.0</td>
<td>84.5</td>
<td>71.0</td>
<td>64.6</td>
<td>65.0</td>
<td>66.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Institute of Supply Management (ISM) reported that during May its Composite Index of Manufacturing Sector Activity rose to 49.6 from an unrevised 48.6 in April. The latest was better than Consensus expectations which had been for [...]

ISM Factory Sector Index Rose Unexpectedly; Level Still Indicates Contraction

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080602a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The Institute of Supply Management (ISM) reported that during
May its Composite Index of Manufacturing Sector Activity rose to 49.6
from an unrevised 48.6 in April. The latest was better than Consensus
expectations which had been for an unchanged reading m/m. However, the
index remained below the break even level for factory sector activity
of 50 for the fifth month in the last six.
The index's average level of 49.0 so far this year was its
lowest since early 2003.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080602b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
During the last twenty years there has been a 64% correlation
between the level of the Composite Index and the three-month growth in
factory sector industrial production.
It is appropriate to correlate the ISM index level
with factory sector growth because the ISM index
is a diffusion index. It measures growth by using all of the positive
changes in activity added to one half of the zero change in activity
measures.
The new orders index rose slightly m/m to its highest level
since November of last year. The reading was, however, near the lowest
level since the recession year of 2001. The production index also rose
very modestly for the second month. The inventory component and the
supplier delivery indexes were roughly unchanged month-to-month.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080602c.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The new export orders sub-series rose moderately to 59.5 which
was its highest level since early 2004. During the last ten years there
has been a 53% correlation between the index and the q/q change in real
exports of goods in the GDP accounts.
The employment index was about unchanged at the low reading of
45.5, near its lowest level since mid 2003. During the last twenty
years there has been a 67% correlation between the level of the ISM
employment index and the three-month growth in factory sector
employment.
The prices paid index rose again to its highest level since
early 2004. During the last twenty years there has been a 77%
correlation between the price index and the three-month change in the
PPI for intermediate goods.
The NBER's Business-Cycle Dating Procedure
is available <a href="http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.pdf">
here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S2/@S201/@S201.HTM">ISM
Mfg</a></th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">May '07</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Composite Index</td>
<td>49.6</td>
<td>48.6</td>
<td>52.8</td>
<td>51.1</td>
<td>53.1</td>
<td>54.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; New Orders Index</td>
<td>49.7</td>
<td>46.5</td>
<td>58.6</td>
<td>54.3</td>
<td>55.4</td>
<td>57.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Employment Index</td>
<td>45.5</td>
<td>45.4</td>
<td>51.4</td>
<td>50.5</td>
<td>51.7</td>
<td>53.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid Index (NSA)</td>
<td>87.0</td>
<td>84.5</td>
<td>71.0</td>
<td>64.6</td>
<td>65.0</td>
<td>66.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Construction Spending Down
Again 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> June 2, 2008



<div align="left"><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080602h.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">

The value of construction put in place fell for the seventh
consecutive month in April. The 0.4% decline was about as-expected and
the March decline of 0.6% was half that reported initially.
Nevertheless, the value of total construction was down 8.6% since its
peak in early 2006.
A 2.3% decline in the April value of residential building
activity led last month's decline in the total, and since its peak it
has fallen by more than one-third. The 37.4% decline was paced by lower
building of single family units; down 4.4% in April and by 3.0% to 5.4%
in each of the prior eight months. Building activity on multi-family
units increased 0.4% (-12.5% y/y) for the second straight month while
spending on improvements fell 0.5% (+7.5% y/y).
During the last twenty years there has been an 84% correlation
between the q/q change in the value of residential building and its
contribution to growth in real GDP.
The value of nonresidential building activity surged again for
the third straight month. The 1.6% increase was led by a 7.6% (45.4%
y/y) jump in lodging and a 1.0% (19.4% y/y) increase in the education
category. Growth in office building remained firm though it posted only
a 0.5% (15.0% y/y) increase during April. Growth in multi-retail
building eased. A 2.1% gain during April failed to make up the declines
during the prior few months and spending was down 4.1% y/y.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080602i.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Public construction slipped 0.3% after a 1.0% March surge.
Public sector nonresidential building slipped 0.5% but it still was up
7.0% y/y. The value of construction spending on highways &amp;
streets ticked up 0.1% (5.2% y/y) after strong gains during the prior
two months. (The value of construction on highways &amp; streets is
roughly one third of the value of total public construction spending.)
Building activity of educational facilities rose 7.3% from a year
earlier and nonresidential office building surged 26.4% y/y.
The more detailed categories of construction represent the
Census Bureau&#8217;s reclassification of construction activity into end-use
groups. Finer detail is available for many of the categories; for
instance, commercial construction is shown for automotive sales and
parking facilities, drugstores, building supply stores, and both
commercial warehouses and mini-storage facilities. Note that start
dates vary for some seasonally adjusted line items in 2000 and 2002 and
that constant-dollar data are no longer computed.
</div>


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E907/@E907.HTM">Construction</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-3.9%</td>
<td>-2.7%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>10.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Private</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>-7.2%</td>
<td>-6.8%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>12.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Residential</td>
<td>-2.3%</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>-21.0%</td>
<td>-18.1%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>13.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonresidential</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>15.4%</td>
<td>18.0%</td>
<td>15.2%</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Public</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>6.8%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
<td>9.2%</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
 EMU MFG Weakens but Pace
ofDecline Slows 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a>
June 2, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080602d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Manufacturing output weakened slightly in the Euro Area in May
but the pace of decline is slowing. Among reporting countries the MFG
PMIs mostly slipped in May. France and the Netherlands were exceptions,
the Netherlands in the most trivial of ways.

Spain remains the mostly serious impacted of EMU countries
with its MFG PMI in the bottom 2.5% of range constructed from early
2000 on. The overall EMU PMI is below breakeven at the 43.7 range
percentile. France, Italy and Austria, too, are below their respective
range midpoints. Germany&#8217;s standing at the 61.2 percentile of its range
is astonishing. The UK, an EU only member, stands in the 42 percentile
of its range.

For the most part these rankings reflect inflation rankings
and therefore reflect competitiveness rankings within the EMU area.
Greece, however, is performing in terms of its MFG PMI much better than
its inflation ranking would have you believe it would. The rest fall
more or less into line. (see inflation chart below for cumulative
inflation on the national HICPs since July 2000).

The table shows that German inflation has risen by 4.4
percentage points less than EMU inflation during their period. Greece&#8217;s
HICP has risen by 11.5% more than the EMU average. Spain is also an
inflation leader and as expected it is an output laggard in this cycle
as the euro has risen.&gt;

On balance there is a great deal of irregularity within the
Euro Area involving inflation performance and output results. Still
there is only one monetary policy, making things difficult. The ECB is
looking only at group inflation (EMU-wide) to make policy and holding
to a firm path. Cracks in the Euro Area are beginning to form. 


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8" scope="col">NTC MFG
Indices </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>May-08</td>
<td>Apr-08</td>
<td>Mar-08</td>
<td>3Mo</td>
<td>6Mo</td>
<td>12Mo</td>
<td>Percentile</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Euro-13</td>
<td>50.60</td>
<td>50.74</td>
<td>52.03</td>
<td>51.12</td>
<td>51.84</td>
<td>52.78</td>
<td>43.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>53.57</td>
<td>53.62</td>
<td>55.14</td>
<td>54.11</td>
<td>54.11</td>
<td>54.58</td>
<td>61.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>51.48</td>
<td>51.12</td>
<td>51.88</td>
<td>51.49</td>
<td>52.68</td>
<td>52.44</td>
<td>41.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>48.05</td>
<td>48.24</td>
<td>49.41</td>
<td>48.57</td>
<td>49.65</td>
<td>51.16</td>
<td>29.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Spain</td>
<td>43.79</td>
<td>45.19</td>
<td>46.42</td>
<td>45.13</td>
<td>46.90</td>
<td>49.41</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Austria</td>
<td>49.76</td>
<td>49.83</td>
<td>53.39</td>
<td>50.99</td>
<td>52.11</td>
<td>53.14</td>
<td>41.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Greece</td>
<td>53.77</td>
<td>54.38</td>
<td>52.73</td>
<td>53.63</td>
<td>52.89</td>
<td>53.48</td>
<td>52.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Netherlands</td>
<td>51.46</td>
<td>51.45</td>
<td>53.15</td>
<td>52.02</td>
<td>52.58</td>
<td>54.64</td>
<td>51.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol"> EU</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">UK</td>
<td>50.03</td>
<td>50.81</td>
<td>51.14</td>
<td>50.66</td>
<td>51.02</td>
<td>52.76</td>
<td>42.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="6" class="firstcol">Percentile
is over range since March
2000</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="3" scope="col">Trouble in
the Zone? </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Jul-00</td>
<td>Gap</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">HICP</td>
<td>Apr-08</td>
<td>W/EMU</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Austria</td>
<td>17.1%</td>
<td>-2.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>17.7%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>15.1%</td>
<td>-4.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Greece</td>
<td>31.0%</td>
<td>11.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>20.8%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">The Netherlands</td>
<td>20.3%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Spain</td>
<td>28.3%</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">EMU Total</td>
<td>19.5%</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Far East Inflation AndEasy Monetary Policies Mean Negative Real Interest Rates In The Area 
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise
Curley</a> June 2, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080602e.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Inflation has risen sharply in most of the Far Eastern
countries. Even those countries that had inflation rates below 3% in
2007--Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines and South Korea-- are now
showing rates of inflation ranging from 4.9% to 8.35% in recent months.
The first chart shows inflation rates in these four countries. Only in
Malaysia, where inflation was 2.0% in 2007, is inflation still below
3.0%.
In April, China's inflation rate was 8.5% and in India, where
the latest data are for March, the inflation rate was 6.0%. In other
countries inflation rates are much higher. For example, in May, the
inflation rates in Indonesia was 10.4% and in Vietnam, 25.3%.
In most Far Eastern countries the monetary authorities have
kept interest rates steady in recent months so that most countries now
have negative real interest rates. The second chart show some typical
policy interest rates and the third chart shows real interest rates in
China and India, which have recently become negative.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080602f.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312"><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080602g.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312">


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">INFLATION
RATES IN THE FAR EAST (%)&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">May 08</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Mar&nbsp; 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">China</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>8.49</td>
<td>8.29</td>
<td>8.84</td>
<td>4.10</td>
<td>4.79</td>
<td>1.76</td>
<td>1.78</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">India&nbsp;</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>6.02</td>
<td>5.23</td>
<td>4.84</td>
<td>4.79</td>
<td>1.76</td>
<td>1.78</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">South Korea</td>
<td>4.88</td>
<td>4.11</td>
<td>3.91</td>
<td>3.57</td>
<td>3.89</td>
<td>2.53</td>
<td>2.24</td>
<td>2.75</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Malaysia</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>3.05</td>
<td>2.76</td>
<td>2.66</td>
<td>2.28</td>
<td>2.03</td>
<td>3.61</td>
<td>3.05</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Thailand</td>
<td>7.59</td>
<td>6.19</td>
<td>5.29</td>
<td>5.41</td>
<td>4.26</td>
<td>2.23</td>
<td>4.64</td>
<td>4.54</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Singapore</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>7.54</td>
<td>6.69</td>
<td>6.58</td>
<td>6.51</td>
<td>2.10</td>
<td>0.96</td>
<td>0.47</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Philippines
</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>8.29</td>
<td>6.37</td>
<td>5.36</td>
<td>4.86</td>
<td>2.77</td>
<td>6.23</td>
<td>7.68</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Indonesia</td>
<td>10.38</td>
<td>8.96</td>
<td>8.17</td>
<td>7.90</td>
<td>7.36</td>
<td>6.41</td>
<td>13.10</td>
<td>10.46</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Vietnam</td>
<td>25.27</td>
<td>21.43</td>
<td>19.39</td>
<td>15.67</td>
<td>14.09</td>
<td>8.30</td>
<td>7.39</td>
<td>8.28</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Malaysia</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

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

US production rebounded in Q2, but demand continued to slow

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

Negative US inflation surprises leading G10 down

Deflation continues in China

Incoming data surprising on downside in US; positive surprises elsewhere

FOMC expects more inflation and less growth than in March

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

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

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

Apart from the US, productivity is moribund

Financial market concerns ebb even though policy uncertainty continues to soar

US tariff revenues nearly doubled in April

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

USD/EUR exchange rate uncoupling from interest rate differential

Widespread downgrading of 2025 GDP outlook

Trade and fiscal policy uncertainty has exploded with the new administration

Much lower US electricity costs gives it a competitive advantage

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

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

US policy gyrations boosting policy uncertainty worldwide

Expected tariff hikes have boosted inflation expectations

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

US economy expected to outperform other major economies in 2025

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

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

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

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

250808F5.jpg

250808G5.jpg

Consumer credit outstanding increased $7.4 billion (2.1% y/y) during June after rising an unrevised $5.1 billion in May, and strengthening $16.4 billion in April, revised from $16.9 billion. A $9.0 billion June rise had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. As a percentage of disposable personal income, consumer credit of 22.4% in June compared to 22.5% in May and 22.9% one year earlier. It reached a high of 26.4% during all of 2017. The figures are reported by the Federal Reserve Board.

Nonrevolving credit outstanding rose $8.4 billion (1.9% y/y) during June after rising $8.9 billion in May, revised from $8.6 billion and an unrevised $9.4 billion in April. Nonrevolving credit held by depository institutions declined 6.8% y/y in June after falling 7.2% y/y in May. Finance company debt holdings eased 0.4% y/y after slipping 0.2% y/y in May, while credit union holdings rose 11.2% y/y in June after a 10.8% y/y May strengthening. Nonrevolving debt of the federal government rose 4.1% y/y in June following a 4.0% y/y rise in May.

In June, revolving credit outstanding, which includes credit cards, fell $1.0 billion (+2.5% y/y) after declining $3.8 billion in May, revised from -$3.5 billion and rising 7.0 billion in April, revised from $7.5 billion. Revolving credit outstanding held by depository institutions fell a steady 2.9% y/y. Revolving credit held by finance companies fell 15.0% y/y after a 14.3% y/y drop in May, while credit union debt rose a fairly steady 4.1% y/y in June.

In Q2’25, student loans rose $8.2 billion (4.2% y/y) while motor loans increased $5.1 billion (0.3% y/y).

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

250808H5.jpg

250808I5.jpg

- Moderate increases in last two months follow strong April gain.
- Nonrevolving credit usage strengthens as revolving credit eases.

U.S. Consumer Credit Picks Up in June

Robert Brusca

250808E.jpg

Japan's economy watchers index is showing some rebound after a period of weakness. The economy is not breaking out into sharply improved readings; however, the monthly readings have now increased and improved for three months in a row for both the current and the future indexes. The increase for the current index over three months is 2.6 diffusion points; for the future index it's 4.6 diffusion points. Over 12 months, both readings are still lower on balance.

**Percentile standings-rankings**
Both headline readings are still below their historic medians, but the current index has a 34.8 percentile standing and the future index has a 39.5 percentile standing. The headline queue standings in both cases are below 50%- a reading below 50% indicates a reading below its historic median.

**Diffusion readings**
Current index components all have diffusion readings below their respective 50 marks, which tells us that they're all showing contraction. The surveys show a headline reading of 45.2 for the current index in July, compared to 47.3 for the future index in July. For the current index, all of the component rankings are below 50 for July, June and May. For the future index, there are three readings above 50 in July and none for June or May.

**July’s Future Index improvement**
The improvement in July for the future index is concentrated in eating and drinking places, services, and employment – all are households or individual-linked readings. That may reflect some sense of relief that Japan’s tariff negotiations with the United States were progressing and finally a deal was struck. The future index, in addition to having several diffusion readings above 50 in July, shows three readings that have queue standings, above the 50th percentile, putting them above their historic medians. Those are readings for eating and drinking places, services, and for housing. The reading for housing takes on a 59.3 percentile queue standing even though its diffusion index remains below 50 at 47. In July it moved up to 47, making a relatively sharp gain from a reading of 42.7 in June.

There is, therefore, relatively more evidence of improvement going on in the future index compared to the current index where monthly gains were generally smaller.

**The breadth of improvement**
Month-to-month the current index improved in 60% of the categories in July compared to 70% in May and June. The future index components improved across the board in July, 80% of them improved in June, and gains were across the board again in May. Looking at the changes over three months, six months, and 12 months according to average data, over three months 60% of the current categories improved compared to none over six months and 80% over 12 months. For average future data, 100% improve over three months, none improve over six months and 60% improve over 12 months.

250808.jpg

**Summing up**
The improvement in the most recent months is clear cut, whether it can be sustained is another matter. It likely reflects some release of anxiety over the tension created by the tariff negotiations with the United States; however, the Bank of Japan is still trying to corral inflation, and on the political side the LDP lost its upper house election and Japanese politics is being reorganized. As far as consumer confidence and expectations are concerned, we can expect that a lot is still in flux in Japan.

Japan

Japan’s Economy Watchers Index Rebounds

Andrew Cates

**Capacity pressures in the US and Europe**
Output gaps in advanced economies (the US and euro area) are estimated to have narrowed sharply in recent months and could be on the verge of turning negative. This reflects a prior period of weaker growth and a growing degree of slack in the economy—conditions that typically translate into softer inflation and heightened pressure on central banks to ease policy. Labour markets are certainly showing greater signs of weakness in the US. A big caveat to this is that estimating output gaps is inherently difficult, especially after recent supply shocks and structural shifts in labour markets. Still, most real-time indicators now suggest aggregate demand is slipping below potential. And that, alongside weakening job data, is strengthening the case for further policy easing and hints at continued disinflation in the months ahead.

250807Z1.jpg

**The US housing market**
US housing has long been a bellwether for broader economic conditions, largely because of its deep ties to credit creation, household balance sheets, and interest rates. That’s why the latest data showing a renewed slump in builder sentiment and a more sustained drop in house price momentum has been of note. With mortgage rates still elevated and lending standards – as we discuss below – still tight, the housing sector looks increasingly fragile—raising fresh concerns about the durability of US growth.

250807Z2.jpg

**US bank lending standards**
This week’s latest Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey confirms that US credit conditions remain restrictive. Banks are still tightening lending standards for companies and consumers while loan demand continues to weaken—a pattern historically associated with periods of economic downturn. Although the net percentage of banks tightening standards has eased somewhat from 2023 peaks (see chart below), it remains elevated, and credit demand is now falling across most categories, from small business to commercial real estate. This tightening in credit supply and fall in demand suggests that monetary policy is still transmitting forcefully through the banking sector.

250807Z3.jpg

**Global growth momentum** 
Until recently, global economic surprises and sentiment surveys were broadly supportive, suggesting the global cycle still had momentum. But this week’s Sentix survey revealed a renewed drop in expectations for August. That decline, coupled with a fading Citi Economic Surprise Index, hints that global momentum may be weakening again. As forward-looking indicators start to roll over, investors and policymakers alike should be alert to a potential shift toward a more pronounced downturn.

250807Z4.jpg

**Global shipping costs and supply chain pressures** 
One additional area of heightened investor concern of late has been the potential inflationary fallout from recent US tariff measures. But so far, there is little evidence – at the global level - to suggest that global supply chains or freight costs have been meaningfully disrupted. The Baltic Exchange Dry Index and the NY Fed’s Global Supply Chain Pressure Index both remain relatively subdued, indicating that logistics bottlenecks have not re-emerged.

250807Z5.jpg

**China’s excess capacity**
China’s economic influence remains pivotal in shaping global goods inflation. The latest data show that producer prices in China continue to contract, extending a prolonged period of deflation that reflects both domestic weakness and excess industrial capacity. This ongoing slack not only suppresses China’s export prices but also exerts downward pressure on global manufacturing input costs. At a time when central banks (most notably in the US) are weighing the risk of reacceleration in inflation, China’s persistent deflation in upstream prices acts as a powerful counterforce—reinforcing the view that goods inflation risks could remain subdued for now.

250807Z6.jpg

Last week’s weaker-than-expected US labour market report—marked by sluggish payroll growth, rising unemployment, and downward revisions to prior months—sparked a notable shift in financial markets. Bond yields fell sharply as investors repriced the outlook for Fed easing, with rate cut expectations brought forward. This recalibration arguably reflects growing awareness of mounting downside risks across the US and broader global economy. Several indicators reinforce this view. Output gaps in many major economies are narrowing or turning negative, signalling that demand is falling short of potential (chart 1). The US housing market looks fragile, amidst weak builder sentiment and falling prices (chart 2). US bank lending standards are still restrictive, with implications for credit availability, household and business investment, and overall economic momentum (chart 3). Some (though not all) global sentiment surveys have softened, and positive growth surprises are now fading. Meanwhile, and despite earlier fears, US tariffs have not triggered renewed supply chain stress or inflationary pressures (chart 5). Add to that the ongoing deflation in China’s producer prices, and the macro narrative could be tilting more decisively toward slower growth and diminishing inflation risks—leaving policymakers with more space to continue easing monetary policy (chart 6).

<iframe data-testid="embed-iframe" style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/7i7Y1SpHPmWN4WbPNCd9Tg?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: Downside Risks

250807L1.jpg

250807M1.jpg

Wholesale inventories increased 0.1% (1.3% y/y) during June after falling an unrevised 0.3% decline in May. The rise was revised from a 0.3% increase in the advance release issued last week and matched expectations in the Informa Global Markets survey. Durable goods inventories rose 0.1% during June (0.2% y/y) after falling 0.7% in May. Furniture & home furnishings inventories eased slightly (+4.9% y/y) after weakening 2.1% in May. Professional & business equipment inventories were off 0.5% (+6.4% y/y) after falling 2.1% in May. Motor vehicle & parts inventories were off 1.2% (-4.7% y/y) for the second consecutive month. Machinery inventories also slipped m/m (-2.4% y/y), after falling 0.8%. Electrical equipment inventories jumped 2.6% (0.7% y/y) after increasing 0.6% in May. Hardware & plumbing equipment inventories rose 0.3% (8.4% y/y) following a 1.2% increase.

Inventories of nondurable goods also edged 0.1% higher during June (3.3% y/y) after rising 0.4% in May. Drug inventories increased 0.6% (5.8% y/y) after a 1.9% gain but apparel inventories declined 2.6% (-3.9% y/y) following a 0.4% fall. Grocery inventories increased 0.7% (10.4% y/y) after no change in May. Paper inventories were off 0.7% (+5.0% y/y) following a 0.2% rise while chemical inventories rose 1.9% (-1.0% y/y), the third straight month of sharp decline. Petroleum & petroleum product inventories rose 6.0% (-3.2% y/y) following a 2.9% increase.

Wholesale sales increased 0.3% (5.5% y/y) in June after falling 0.4% in May. A 0.2% increase had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Sales of durable goods rose 0.5% (7.6% y/y) in June after rising 0.2% in May. Auto sales fell 0.7% (+4.3% y/y) after a 3.5% rise. Sales of electrical equipment improved 0.2% (15.3% y/y) following a 1.1% rise. Metals & minerals sales gained 0.6% (4.3% y/y) following a 1.2% gain. Furniture sales declined 2.2% (-3.0% y/y) after falling 2.3%. Professional equipment sales improved 0.3% (7.6% y/y) following a 0.3% decline. Machinery sales rose 0.8% (6.5% y/y) after declining 0.9% in May.

Sales of nondurable goods edged 0.1% higher (3.5% y/y) during June after falling 1.0% in May. Paper sales slumped 1.4% (+0.3% y/y) after falling 1.0% in May. Drug sales rose 0.8% (11.2% y/y) after falling 0.3% in May. Petroleum sales increased 0.9% (-7.4% y/y) after declining 3.0%. Sales of apparel rose 0.9% (9.3% y/y) after rising 1.9%. Grocery store sales decreased 	0.7% (+5.1% y/y) after rising 0.7% in May.

The June inventory-to-sales ratio in the wholesale sector stood at 1.3 for the fifth straight month. The durable goods I/S ratio eased to 1.66, down from the 1.81 high in March of last year. The ratio ranged from 2.84 for machinery to 0.98 for electrical equipment. The nondurable goods I/S ratio held at 0.95. The I/S ratio for apparel was 2.03 in June while for petroleum it was 0.35.

The wholesale trade figures are available in Haver's **USECON** database. The expectations figure for inventories is contained in the **MMSAMER** database. Expectations for sales are from the **AS1REPNA** database.

250807N1.jpg

250807O1.jpg

- Slight inventory gain masks divergent industry patterns.
- Sales increase is first since March.
- I/S ratio steadies at three-year low.

U.S. Wholesale Inventories Edge Higher in June

Sandy Batten

250807N2.jpg

250807O2.jpg

Nonfarm business labor productivity (output per hour) rebounded in Q2, increasing 2.4% q/q (SAAR) after having fallen 1.8% in Q1 (revised down from -1.5%). A 2.0% quarterly increase in Q2 was expected by the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Compared to a year ago, productivity growth edged up to 1.3% in Q2 from 1.2% in Q1.

Real value added (output) advanced 3.7% q/q in Q2 after declining 0.6% in Q1. Hours worked increased 1.3% q/q, up only marginally from a 1.2% gain in Q1. Compensation growth slowed to 4.0% q/q in Q2 from 5.0% in Q1 and 5.5% in last year’s Q4. As a result, unit labor costs advanced only 1.6% q/q in Q2, down markedly from a 6.9% quarterly gain in Q1. However, on a y/y basis, unit labor costs increased 2.6% y/y in Q2 versus 2.0% in Q1. Annual unit labor costs have been on an uptrend since the middle of last year.

Factory sector productivity slowed to 2.1% q/q (SAAR) in Q2 from a downwardly revised 3.3% in Q1 (previously 4.4%). Compared with a year ago, manufacturing productivity increased 1.5% in Q2, its fastest annual advance since Q2 2021. Manufacturing compensation growth slowed to 3.8% q/q in Q2 from 6.3% in Q1. Accordingly, unit labor cost growth slowed to 1.7% q/q in Q1, its slowest pace in four quarters, from 2.9% in Q1.

The productivity and labor cost data are available in Haver’s **USECON** database. The Action Economics expectations figures are in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250807P2.jpg

250807Q2.jpg

- Nonfarm business productivity increased 2.4% q/q annualized in Q2, more than reversing the 1.8% quarterly decline in Q1.
- Compensation growth slowed to 4.0% from 5.0% in Q1.
- Consequently, unit labor cost growth slowed markedly to 1.6% from 6.9% in Q1.

U.S. Productivity Rebounded in Q2; Unit Labor Costs Slowed

Economy in Brief: June 2008

Jump to:

ISM Factory Sector Index Rose Unexpectedly; Level Still Indicates Contraction

ISM Factory Sector Index Rose Unexpectedly; Level Still Indicates Contraction