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/120626i_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120626i.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120626j_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120626j.png"></a></p>
    
      <p>The Conference Board's June Index of Consumer Confidence Index fell for
      the fifth month this year. It declined 3.7% to 62.0 from 64.4 last month,
      initially reported as 64.9. Nevertheless, the index remained up by more
      than half from the October low. The June figure was below Consensus
      estimates for 63.2. During the last ten years there was been a 48%
      correlation between the level of confidence and the three-month change in
      real PCE.</p>
      <p>A lower reading of the consumer expectations component of confidence
      led the decline this month with a 6.5% decline (+1.0% y/y) to 72.3, also
      off for the fifth month this year. The percentage expecting business
      conditions to improve fell to its lowest (15.5%) since November while the
      percent expecting more jobs dropped slightly to its least (14.1%) since
      December.</p>
      <p>Consumers' reading of the present situation improved 3.8% (17.3% y/y)
      but that followed a 12.3% May drop. Respondents indicating that business
      conditions were good improved moderately. In addition, the percentage
      reporting that jobs were hard to get rose slightly to 41.5%, its highest
      since January.</p>
      <p>Expectations for inflation in the next twelve months fell m/m to 5.3%
      versus a high of 6.2%, equaling the lowest figure since December 2010. The
      percentage of people looking for stock prices to rise again dropped
      sharply this month and the percent who are bearish jumped. The percentage
      expecting higher interest rates fell. </p>
      <p>Headline figures on consumer confidence are carried in Haver's <b>USECON</b>
      database. The Conference Board's detailed data are found in Haver's <b>CBDB</b>
      database, and the consensus expectations figure is from Actions Economics,
      as tabulated in the <b>AS1REPNA </b>database.</p>
      
      
      <p><a href="/comment/120626k_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120626k.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120626l_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120626l.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" scope="col" ><b>Conference Board
              (SA, 1985=100)</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Jun</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>May</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Apr</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Y/Y %</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2011</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2010</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2009</b></th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Consumer Confidence Index</td>
            <td  >62.0</td>
            <td  >64.4</td>
            <td  >68.7</td>
            <td  >7.6</td>
            <td  >58.1</td>
            <td  >54.5</td>
            <td  >45.2</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Present Situation</td>
            <td  >46.6</td>
            <td  >44.9</td>
            <td  >51.2</td>
            <td  >27.3</td>
            <td  >36.2</td>
            <td  >25.7</td>
            <td  >24.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Expectations</td>
            <td  >72.3</td>
            <td  >77.3</td>
            <td  >80.4</td>
            <td  >1.0</td>
            <td  >72.8</td>
            <td  >73.7</td>
            <td  >59.3</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      </span>
</body>

</html>


The Conference Board's June Index of Consumer Confidence Index fell for the fifth month this year. It declined 3.7% to 62.0 from 64.4 last month, initially reported as 64.9. Nevertheless, the index remained up by more than half from [...]

U.S. Consumer Confidence Declines As Expectations Diminish

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/120626e_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120626e.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120627e_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120627e.png"></a></p>
 
       Earlier pressure on home prices has given way to an
      improving trend. The seasonally adjusted
      Case-Shiller 20-City Home Price Index rose another 0.7% (-1.9% y/y) during
      April. That repeated its March rise, revised up from 0.1%. The narrower 10
      City Composite Home Price Index also rose 0.7% (-2.2% y/y) for the second
      month.
      <p>Prices in most markets improved m/m during April, notably in Phoenix,
      San Francisco, Tampa, Washington D.C., Minneapolis, Miami and Los Angeles.
      Losing momentum were prices in Detroit, New York and Boston.</p>
      <p>The Case-Shiller home price series is value-weighted, i.e., a greater
      index weight is assigned to more expensive homes. It is a three-month
      moving average and is calculated using the &quot;repeat sales
      method,&quot; where the item measured is the price change for a specific
      house compared to the price for that same house the last time it sold. The
      nation-wide S&amp;P/Case-Shiller home price indexes can be found in
      Haver's <b>USECON</b> database, and the city data highlighted below are in
      the <b>REGIONAL </b>database. </p>
      
     <p><a href="/comment/120627f_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120627f.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120627g_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120627g.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" scope="col" ><b>S&amp;P Case-Shiller
              Home Price Index (SA, %)</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Apr</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Mar</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Feb</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Apr<br>
              Y/Y</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2011</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2010</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2009</b></th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" ><b>20 City Composite Index</b></td>
            <td  >0.7</td>
            <td  >0.7</td>
            <td  >0.1</td>
            <td  >-1.9%</td>
            <td  >-3.9</td>
            <td  >1.3</td>
            <td  >-13.3</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="grey3">
            <td class="firstcol" colSpan="8" ><b>Regional Indicators</b></td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Atlanta</td>
            <td  >0.8</td>
            <td  >-0.3</td>
            <td  >-2.0</td>
            <td  >-17.0</td>
            <td  >-7.0</td>
            <td  >-2.4</td>
            <td  >-11.6</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Boston</td>
            <td  >-0.1</td>
            <td  >0.8</td>
            <td  >-0.1</td>
            <td  >0.1</td>
            <td  >-2.0</td>
            <td  >1.9</td>
            <td  >-4.9</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Chicago</td>
            <td  >0.5</td>
            <td  >-1.1</td>
            <td  >-0.7</td>
            <td  >-5.5</td>
            <td  >-6.8</td>
            <td  >-3.7</td>
            <td  >-14.2</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Cleveland</td>
            <td  >0.6</td>
            <td  >0.8</td>
            <td  >-0.1</td>
            <td  >-1.3</td>
            <td  >-4.3</td>
            <td  >0.7</td>
            <td  >-4.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Dallas</td>
            <td  >0.5</td>
            <td  >1.4</td>
            <td  >0.6</td>
            <td  >2.9</td>
            <td  >-2.4</td>
            <td  >0.1</td>
            <td  >-2.3</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Denver</td>
            <td  >0.4</td>
            <td  >1.1</td>
            <td  >0.3</td>
            <td  >2.8</td>
            <td  >-2.1</td>
            <td  >0.9</td>
            <td  >-2.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Detroit</td>
            <td  >-2.1</td>
            <td  >-1.2</td>
            <td  >0.3</td>
            <td  >1.4</td>
            <td  >-0.0</td>
            <td  >-3.4</td>
            <td  >-21.3</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Las Vegas</td>
            <td  >0.9</td>
            <td  >0.6</td>
            <td  >0.2</td>
            <td  >-5.9</td>
            <td  >-6.5</td>
            <td  >-7.7</td>
            <td  >-29.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Los Angeles</td>
            <td  >1.1</td>
            <td  >0.5</td>
            <td  >0.1</td>
            <td  >-3.6</td>
            <td  >-3.4</td>
            <td  >5.3</td>
            <td  >-15.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Miami</td>
            <td  >1.2</td>
            <td  >1.9</td>
            <td  >1.4</td>
            <td  >3.2</td>
            <td  >-4.9</td>
            <td  >-2.1</td>
            <td  >-22.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Minneapolis</td>
            <td  >1.3</td>
            <td  >0.8</td>
            <td  >1.3</td>
            <td  >3.9</td>
            <td  >-8.2</td>
            <td  >3.2</td>
            <td  >-15.7</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >New York</td>
            <td  >-0.1</td>
            <td  >-0.2</td>
            <td  >-0.5</td>
            <td  >-3.7</td>
            <td  >-3.1</td>
            <td  >-1.5</td>
            <td  >-9.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Phoenix</td>
            <td  >2.3</td>
            <td  >2.7</td>
            <td  >2.3</td>
            <td  >8.6</td>
            <td  >-7.3</td>
            <td  >-0.3</td>
            <td  >-28.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Portland</td>
            <td  >0.7</td>
            <td  >0.1</td>
            <td  >0.6</td>
            <td  >-0.9</td>
            <td  >-7.2</td>
            <td  >-3.2</td>
            <td  >-12.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >San Diego</td>
            <td  >0.7</td>
            <td  >0.4</td>
            <td  >0.6</td>
            <td  >-1.8</td>
            <td  >-4.4</td>
            <td  >7.3</td>
            <td  >-13.3</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >San Francisco</td>
            <td  >1.5</td>
            <td  >1.0</td>
            <td  >1.2</td>
            <td  >-1.4</td>
            <td  >-4.9</td>
            <td  >9.3</td>
            <td  >-18.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Seattle</td>
            <td  >0.6</td>
            <td  >2.0</td>
            <td  >-0.4</td>
            <td  >-0.9</td>
            <td  >-6.6</td>
            <td  >-3.6</td>
            <td  >-14.3</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Tampa</td>
            <td  >1.4</td>
            <td  >1.3</td>
            <td  >0.9</td>
            <td  >0.8</td>
            <td  >-6.6</td>
            <td  >-4.0</td>
            <td  >-18.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Washington, D.C.</td>
            <td  >1.4</td>
            <td  >1.8</td>
            <td  >-0.5</td>
            <td  >1.6</td>
            <td  >-0.4</td>
            <td  >4.7</td>
            <td  >-10.8</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      </span>
</body>
</html>


Earlier pressure on home prices has given way to an improving trend. The seasonally adjusted Case-Shiller 20-City Home Price Index rose another 0.7% (-1.9% y/y) during April. That repeated its March rise, revised up from 0.1%. The [...]

U.S. Case-Shiller Home Price Index Strengthens

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/120626a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120626a.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120626b_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120626b.png"></a></p>
       <p>Weak demand for petroleum products continued to
      depress prices last week.<b>The pump price
      of regular gasoline declined nine cents to $3.44 per gallon</b>. Since
      early April prices have fallen fifty cents (-12.8%). Haver Analytics'
      seasonally-adjusted price for regular <b>also declined nine cents to $3.14
      per gallon.</b> This price is lower than the actual cost since prices
      typically rise with the summer driving season. Yesterday, the wholesale
      price for a gallon of unleaded was $2.46 versus $3.55 averaged last week.</p>
      <p><b>Reduced driving and improved fuel economy lowered the demand for
      gasoline by 5.0% y/y last week.</b> The demand for residual fuel oil, used for heating, was off 41.3% and distillate demand fell 1.7%
      y/y. <b>Inventories</b> of crude oil and petroleum products ticked up 0.2%
      year-to-year. That comparison was improved versus the 5.0% decline this
      past fall.</p>
      <p>The price for a barrel of <b>light sweet crude oil</b> was off $1.12
      last week to $83.32 as global demand weakened. Yesterday, the cost of
      crude rose to $84.00 per barrel. Prices peaked at $113.93 in April, 2011.
      Brent crude declined last week to $99.25 per barrel and fell further to
      $98.30 yesterday.</p>
      <p><b>Natural gas </b>prices rose to $2.54 per mmbtu but were down 41.3%
      y/y. Yesterday, prices slipped to $2.46 and still were off from the
      early-January 2010 peak of $6.50.</p>
      <p>The energy price data are reported by the U.S. Department of Energy and
      can be found in Haver's <b>WEEKLY </b>database. The daily figures are in <b>DAILY</b>
      and the gasoline demand figures are in <b>OILWKLY.</b></p>
      
         <p><a href="/comment/120626c_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120626c.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120626d_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120626d.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" scope="col" >Weekly
              Price</th>
            <th scope="col" >06/25/12</th>
            <th scope="col" >06/18/12</th>
            <th scope="col" >06/11/12</th>
            <th scope="col" >Y/Y%</th>
            <th scope="col">2011</th>
            <th scope="col">2010</th>
            <th scope="col">2009</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Retail Regular Gasoline ($ per
              Gallon, Regular)</td>
            <td>3.44</td>
            <td>3.53</td>
            <td>3.57</td>
            <td>-3.8</td>
            <td>3.52</td>
            <td>2.78</td>
            <td>2.35</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Light Sweet Crude Oil, WTI ($ per
              bbl.)</td>
            <td>81.41</td>
            <td>83.32</td>
            <td>84.44</td>
            <td>-12.3</td>
            <td>95.14</td>
            <td>79.51</td>
            <td>61.39</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Natural Gas ($/mmbtu)</td>
            <td>2.54</td>
            <td>2.24</td>
            <td>2.33</td>
            <td>-41.3</td>
            <td>3.99</td>
            <td>4.40</td>
            <td>3.95</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      </span>
</body></html>


Weak demand for petroleum products continued to depress prices last week.The pump price of regular gasoline declined nine cents to $3.44 per gallon. Since early April prices have fallen fifty cents (-12.8%). Haver Analytics' [...]

U.S. Petroleum Prices Slide Yet Again

Louise Curley

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	  <br>
      
      
      <p></p>
    
      <b>In spite of signs of weakness in the Brazilian economy in the last two
      years, Brazilian consumer confidence kept increasing</b> up through&nbsp;
      April of this year. The main measure of Consumer Confidence, the Getulio
      Vargas Foundation (FVG) Index reached an all time high of 128.7
      points&nbsp; (The index has a range of 1 to 200 points with 100 points
      considered an indication of neutral sentiment.)&nbsp; in April of
      this year.&nbsp; Confidence has since weakened and in June was some 4%
      below the peak.&nbsp; Appraisals of current conditions that had
      reached 148.1 points in April are still relatively high.&nbsp; The June
      index was 139.1 points or almost 40% above what is considered&nbsp;
      &quot;neutral sentiment.&quot;&nbsp; Expectations have been more
      subdued.&nbsp; As can be seen in the first chart that shows consumer
      confidence, current conditions and expectations, the index of expectations
      has generally been below levels reached before the financial crisis of
      2008.
      
      <p><b>Brazilian businessmen</b>, in general, have been less optimistic than
      consumers, particularly in their appraisal of current conditions.&nbsp;
      The measure of business confidence is different from that of the
      consumer.&nbsp; (Business confidence is measured by a ba balance of
      opinion measure where values above 50 equal growth and those below 50
      represent retrenchment.&nbsp; While consumers still rate current
      conditions highly, the business community shows current conditions is a
      state of retrenchment. But while consumers recent expectations tended to
      be below those reached before the financial crisis of 2008, business
      expectation have been higher, as can be seen in comparing the first and
      second charts.&nbsp;
      </p>
      <p>The consumer confidence data were published today and the business data
      late last week and can be found in the Haver Database, <b>EMERGELA</b>.
      </p>
      <p><a href="/comment/120625h_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120625h.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120625i_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120625i.png"></a></p>
          
	
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
        
 <tr>
             <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Brazil</th>
            <th scope="col" >Jun '12</th>
            <th scope="col" >May '12</th>
            <th scope="col" >Apr '12</th>
            <th scope="col" >Mar '12</th>
            <th scope="col" >Feb '12</th>
            <th scope="col" >Jan '12</th>
 </tr>
 <tr  class="odd" >
  <td  class="firstcol" > Consumer Confidence Index&nbsp; (Points) </td>
  <td  >123.5</td>
  <td  >127.1</td>
  <td  >128.7</td>
  <td  >122.7</td>
  <td  >119.4</td>
  <td  >116.0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td class="firstcol" >Current Conditions&nbsp; (Points)</td>
  <td   >139.1</td>
  <td   >145.5</td>
  <td   >148.1</td>
  <td  >142.7</td>
  <td  >140.5</td>
  <td  >137.4</td>
 </tr>
 <tr  class="odd" >
  <td  class="firstcol" >Expectations&nbsp; (Points)</td>
  <td  >114.9</td>
  <td  >117.0</td>
  <td  >118.7</td>
  <td  >112.2</td>
  <td   >108.3</td>
  <td    >104.9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr  >
  <td class="firstcol"  > Business Confidence Index&nbsp; (50%+ =Growth) </td>
  <td  >56.1</td>
  <td  >57.9</td>
  <td  >57.2</td>
  <td  >58.6</td>
  <td  >59.2</td>
  <td  >57.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd" >
  <td class="firstcol" >Current Conditions (50%+ =Growth)</td>
  <td  >46.9</td>
  <td  >48.6</td>
  <td  >47.7</td>
  <td  >49.0</td>
  <td  >49.4</td>
  <td  >48.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
  <td class="firstcol"> Expectations (50%+ =Growth)</td>
  <td  >60.6</td>
  <td  >62.6</td>
  <td  >62.0</td>
  <td  >63.4</td>
  <td  >62.7</td>
  <td  >61.7</td>
          </tr>
        
      
      
   
 </html>

In spite of signs of weakness in the Brazilian economy in the last two years, Brazilian consumer confidence kept increasing up through April of this year. The main measure of Consumer Confidence, the Getulio Vargas Foundation (FVG) [...]

Brazilian Consumers Still More Confident Than Business

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/120625e_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120625e.png" align="left"></a>
      The housing market is on the mend. <b>New home sales jumped 7.6% in May to 369,000 </b>following a 1.2% April
      decline. However, March sales were revised up. May sales beat consensus
      expectations for 346,000. A one-third rise (127.8% y/y) in sales in the
      Northeast to 41,000 led last month's improvement followed by the South's
      12.7% (16.6% y/y) gain to 204,000. Sales in both the Midwest, off 10.6%
      (+2.4% y/y), and the West, off 3.5% (+10.8% y/y), fell.</p>
      <p>The <b>median price</b> of a new single family
      home fell for the third straight month. The 0.6% m/m decline (+5.6% y/y)
      to $234,500, from a downwardly revised April, was to the lowest level
      since January. The average price fell 3.5% (+4.3% y/y) in May.</p>
      <p>The <b>length of time to sell a new home </b>held m/m at 7.9 months in
      May. The <b>inventory of unsold homes</b> remained near the all time low
      at 145,000 units (-14.2% y/y). This is a 4.7-month supply at the current
      sales rate.</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.</p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/120625f_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120625f.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120625g_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120625g.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" scope="col" >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" >2011</th>
            <th scope="col" >2010</th>
            <th scope="col" >2009</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Total (SAAR, 000s)</td>
            <td  >369</td>
            <td  >343</td>
            <td  >347</td>
            <td  >19.8</td>
            <td  >307</td>
            <td  >321</td>
            <td  >374</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Northeast</td>
            <td  >41</td>
            <td  >30</td>
            <td  >27</td>
            <td  >127.8</td>
            <td  >21</td>
            <td  >31</td>
            <td  >31</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Midwest</td>
            <td  >42</td>
            <td  >47</td>
            <td  >42</td>
            <td  >2.4</td>
            <td  >45</td>
            <td  >45</td>
            <td  >54</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >South</td>
            <td  >204</td>
            <td  >181</td>
            <td  >201</td>
            <td  >16.6</td>
            <td  >169</td>
            <td  >173</td>
            <td  >202</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >West</td>
            <td  >82</td>
            <td  >85</td>
            <td  >77</td>
            <td  >10.8</td>
            <td  >72</td>
            <td  >74</td>
            <td  >87</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Median Price (NSA, $)</td>
            <td  >234,500</td>
            <td  >236,000</td>
            <td  >239,500</td>
            <td  >5.6</td>
            <td  >224,317</td>
            <td  >221,242</td>
            <td  >214,500</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      </span>
</body></html>      


The housing market is on the mend. New home sales jumped 7.6% in May to 369,000 following a 1.2% April decline. However, March sales were revised up. May sales beat consensus expectations for 346,000. A one-third rise (127.8% y/y) in [...]

U.S. New Home Sales Improve; Prices Decline

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/120625a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120625a.png" align="left"></a>
      The May National Activity Index (CFNAI) from the Chicago Federal Reserve dropped
      to -0.45 from a revised 0.08 in April, reported as 0.11 last month.
      Moreover,<b> the three-month moving deteriorated to -0.34, its lowest
      reading since June of last year.</b> During the last ten years there has
      been an 81% correlation between the Chicago Fed Index and the q/q change
      in real GDP.</p>
      <p>Month-to-month deterioration occurred primarily in the Production &amp;
      Income series which reversed its April improvement. The other index
      components were roughly flat m/m or slightly improved m/m. The Chicago Fed
      reported that thirty two of the 85 individual indicators made positive
      contributions to the index in May while 53 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.</p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/120625b_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120625b.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120625c_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120625c.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" scope="col" width="586"><b><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S5/@S503/@S503.HTM">Chicago
              Federal Reserve Bank</a></b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>May</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Apr</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Mar</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>May'11</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2011</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2010</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2009</b></th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="586">CFNAI</td>
            <td  >-0.45</td>
            <td  >0.08</td>
            <td  >-0.64</td>
            <td  >-0.25</td>
            <td  >-0.06</td>
            <td  >0.00</td>
            <td  >-1.62</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="586">&nbsp;3-Month Moving Average</td>
            <td  >-0.34</td>
            <td  >-0.13</td>
            <td  >-0.05</td>
            <td  >-0.19</td>
            <td  >--</td>
            <td  >--</td>
            <td  >--</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="586">&nbsp;&nbsp;Personal Consumption
              &amp; Housing</td>
            <td  >-0.25</td>
            <td  >-0.24</td>
            <td  >-0.26</td>
            <td  >-0.36</td>
            <td  >-0.32</td>
            <td  >-0.32</td>
            <td  >-0.36</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="586">&nbsp;&nbsp;Employment,
              Unemployment &amp; Hours</td>
            <td  >0.00</td>
            <td  >-0.13</td>
            <td  >0.13</td>
            <td  >0.02</td>
            <td  >0.12</td>
            <td  >0.04</td>
            <td  >-0.82</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="586">&nbsp;&nbsp;Production &amp; Income</td>
            <td  >-0.20</td>
            <td  >0.42</td>
            <td  >-0.39</td>
            <td  >0.09</td>
            <td  >0.09</td>
            <td  >0.22</td>
            <td  >-0.27</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="586">&nbsp;&nbsp;Sales, Orders &amp;
              Inventories</td>
            <td  >0.00</td>
            <td  >0.02</td>
            <td  >-0.12</td>
            <td  >-0.17</td>
            <td  >0.04</td>
            <td  >0.07</td>
            <td  >-0.16</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      </span>
      </body></html>      


The May National Activity Index (CFNAI) from the Chicago Federal Reserve dropped to -0.45 from a revised 0.08 in April, reported as 0.11 last month. Moreover, the three-month moving deteriorated to -0.34, its lowest reading since June [...]

U.S. Chicago Fed Index Is Negative Again

<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>FHFA Home Price Index Decline Lessens Y</title>
</head>

<body>

<div id="content">
  <div id="rightside">
    <div id="entire" class="col">
      <br>
      
      <p><span id="byline">Economic momentum waned further last month.</span><span id="articletext">
      The May National Activity Index (CFNAI) from the Chicago Federal Reserve
      to -0.45 from a revised 0.08 in April, last month reported as 0.11.
      Moreover,<b> the three-month moving deteriorated to -0.34, its lowest
      reading since June of last year.</b> During the last ten years there has
      been an 81% correlation between the Chicago Fed Index and the q/q change
      in real GDP
      <p>Month-to-month deterioration occurred primarily in the Production &amp;
      Income series which reversed its April improvement. The other index
      components were roughly flat m/m or slightly improved m/m. The Chicago Fed
      reported that thirty two of the 85 individual indicators made positive
      contributions to the index in May while 53 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.</p>
      <table class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0" width="1231">
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="586"><b><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S5/@S503/@S503.HTM">Chicago
              Federal Reserve Bank</a></b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="91"><b>May</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="91"><b>Apr</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="91"><b>Mar</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="92"><b>May'11</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="92"><b>2011</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="92"><b>2010</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="92"><b>2009</b></th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="586">CFNAI</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">-0.45</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">0.08</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">-0.64</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">-0.25</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">-0.06</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">0.00</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">-1.62</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="586">&nbsp;3-Month Moving Average</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">-0.34</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">-0.13</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">-0.05</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">-0.19</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">--</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">--</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">--</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="586">&nbsp;&nbsp;Personal Consumption
              &amp; Housing</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">-0.25</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">-0.24</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">-0.26</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">-0.36</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">-0.32</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">-0.32</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">-0.36</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="586">&nbsp;&nbsp;Employment,
              Unemployment &amp; Hours</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">0.00</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">-0.13</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">0.13</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">0.02</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">0.12</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">0.04</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">-0.82</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="586">&nbsp;&nbsp;Production &amp; Income</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">-0.20</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">0.42</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">-0.39</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">0.09</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">0.09</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">0.22</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">-0.27</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="586">&nbsp;&nbsp;Sales, Orders &amp;
              Inventories</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">0.00</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">0.02</td>
            <td align="center" width="91">-0.12</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">-0.17</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">0.04</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">0.07</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">-0.16</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      </span>
    </p></div>
  </div>
</div>

<div id="footer" class="sprites">
  <ul>
  </ul>
</div>

<div id="content">
  <div id="rightside">
    <div id="entire" class="col">
      <span id="articletitle">U.S. New Home Sales Improve; Prices Decline</span><br>
      <span id="byline">by &nbsp;</span><span id="byline0"><a href="http://www.haver.com/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
      Moeller</a>&nbsp; </span><span id="byline">June 25, 2012</span>
      <p><span id="byline">The housing market is on the mend.</span> <span id="articletext"><b>New
      home sales jumped 7.6% in May to 369,000 </b>following a 1.2% April
      decline. However, March sales were revised up. May sales beat consensus
      expectations for 346,000. A one-third rise (127.8% y/y) in sales in the
      Northeast to 41,000 led last month's improvement followed by the South's
      12.7% (16.6% y/y) gain to 204,000. Sales in both the Midwest, off 10.6%
      (+2.4% y/y), and the West, off 3.5% (+10.8% y/y), fell.</span></p>
      <p><span id="articletext">The <b>median price</b> of a new single family
      home fell for the third straight month. The 0.6% m/m decline (+5.6% y/y)
      to $234,500, from a downwardly revised April, was to the lowest level
      since January. The average price fell 3.5% (+4.3% y/y) in May.
      <p>The <b>length of time to sell a new home </b>held m/m at 7.9 months in
      May. The <b>inventory of unsold homes</b> remained near the all time low
      at 145,000 units (-14.2% y/y). This is a 4.7-month supply at the current
      sales rate.</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.</p>
      <table class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0" width="1231">
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="363">U.S. New Home Sales</th>
            <th scope="col" width="123">May</th>
            <th scope="col" width="123">Apr</th>
            <th scope="col" width="123">Mar</th>
            <th scope="col" width="123">Y/Y %</th>
            <th scope="col" width="124">2011</th>
            <th scope="col" width="124">2010</th>
            <th scope="col" width="124">2009</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="363">Total (SAAR, 000s)</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">369</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">343</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">347</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">19.8</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">307</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">321</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">374</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="363">Northeast</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">41</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">30</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">27</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">127.8</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">21</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">31</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">31</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="363">Midwest</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">42</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">47</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">42</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">2.4</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">45</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">45</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">54</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="363">South</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">204</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">181</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">201</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">16.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">169</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">173</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">202</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="363">West</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">82</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">85</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">77</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">10.8</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">72</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">74</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">87</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="363">Median Price (NSA, $)</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">234,500</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">236,000</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">239,500</td>
            <td align="center" width="123">5.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">224,317</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">221,242</td>
            <td align="center" width="124">214,500</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      </span>
    </p></div>
  </div>
</div>

<div id="footer" class="sprites">
  <ul>
  </ul>
</div>

</body>

</html>


The May National Activity Index (CFNAI) from the Chicago Federal Reserve to -0.45 from a revised 0.08 in April, last month reported as 0.11. Moreover, the three-month moving deteriorated to -0.34, its lowest reading since June of last [...]

Robert Brusca

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	   <br>
       
       
      <p></p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/120622a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="large" align="left" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120622a.png"></a>
      Italy's consumer confidence looks like it is about plunge right off the chart. The confidence measure has dropped 
      by over one point in June and is at a new all-time low. </p>
      <p>And as we peruse the components they are disaster-struck. The relative BEST reading is the overall situation for 
      the past 12-months at -35 which is positioned in the 68th percentile of its historic queue. That is a surprisingly 
      high standing for such a deeply negative number. Moreover, the past 12-months have been no picnic and for that 
      reading to score as the top 32% (top third) of the queue for the Italian consumer says something about how Italians 
      now view the future. </p> 
      <p><b>Never on a Sunday, or Monday, or Tuesday...</b>Indeed, the overall situation for the next 12-months has a raw 
      score of -32 which leaves it in the bottom 0.3% of its historic queue (yes, that's the bottom one-third of 
      one-percent, not a typo). One of the worst values ever. Unemployment prospects are in the 99.5 percentile of 
      their historic queue. Higher unemployment is seen as about as certain as ever. The household budget, looking ahead, 
      is the worst ever. Worst ever...</p> 
      <p>The household financial situation over the last 12-months is scored as a bottom 9% standing while the next 
      12-months score as a bottom 1.4% standing. Terrible readings all.  </p> 
      <p>The savings readings are somewhat odd and at the same time telling. Italians say it is a good time to save with 
      a score that is in the top 10% of its all-time range. Well if times are so bad, how can they be so bad if households 
      can save? The answer is in the <i>outlook for savings</i> which stands in the bottom 5.5% of its historic range. 
      Basically it looks like Italians are so freaked out they feel they have to save now because they will not be able 
      to save in the future. The financial environment has been very bad; it is going to get worse. The Italian consumers 
      have NO ILLUSIONS about the future. There will be no Dolce Vida. Some may fear for their simple 'Vida'.</p> 
      <p><b>Cold hard facts no denial...</b>This survey says the Italians see the cold hard facts du jour. But for now, 
      Italy's politicians are still trying to dodge biting the bullet but the people seem to have gotten the message. 
      I don't doubt that it is a bad time to be an Italian politician, technocrat or otherwise. But the hand writing 
      is on the wall. Greece is in the gutter, Spain's banks are all dressed up with nowhere to go and still being 
      coddled by a stress test that hardly looks any more realistic that the pabulum from the past. </p> 
      <p>If you wanted to update Grimm's Fairy Tales, you could add a couple of chapters on the stress test assessments 
      done in Europe since the financial crisis. There has been no greater fantasy. Italians KNOW their banks are not in 
      good shape either, but they have not been making headline recently. </p> 
      <p>The final element for Italian confidence is the current index which stands at a -46 and at that is only in the 
      bottom 25% of its historic queue. </p> 
      <p>Cleary Italy is challenged and troubled. Its people 'get it.'  Its politicians are either in denial or simply 
      do not know what to do next. Certainly all the posturing in Greece and Spain suggests Europe is still very much involved in using Kabuki to make policy. That does not give the right signals to Italy or to others to solve their current problems.</p> 
      <p>There is one very important reason to stop fooling around. Fooling around does not help Greece or Spain to make the hard choices they must make. And it sends the wrong signal to others who have their own bullets to bite. Europe has frittered away a lot of its time and lost flexibility. The Italian consumer can sense it.</p> 
      <p><b>Elsewhere in the Zone...</b>My sense is that today's IFO for Germany which showed expectations plunge as current conditions improved is not exactly a view of reality for Germany; Germany is in a different space from Italy, for sure. Non-Zoner Switzerland IMPROVED its growth outlook. But these are not isolated economies they are only partly insulated from these events in the Zone. The knock-on effects are in train. Germany's exposure to losses though its backing of the ECB and the LTRO loans it made and through the target2 balances at the ECB (only a problem if the euro breaks up!) cannot be dismissed and should not be downplayed. Germany has much more skin in the game' than it might seem.</p> 
      <p>Everyone can understand German resistance to giving everyone else a 'fourth second-chance'. The 'debtors' must do more. It's not about hitting fiscal targets as much as plugging holes and collecting taxes and getting rid of stupid work rules and excessive pay and vacation promises – especially to the all-too-insulated 'public servants.' No one can hit fiscal targets when the economic bottom falls out. But there are things that can be done to buy, to earn, to demonstrate credibility and the Mediterranean countries need to do those things NOW - right NOW. The Germans need to decide if they want to be a member of this club or not. Being a member implies responsibility and yes for your neighbor, too. It's not just keeping your own lawn cut and weed free. The German fiscal idea that divides Europe into a 'Japanese lunch box' with everyone minding his own budget surplus in his own little walled off cubicle is not much of a united Europe is it?  That plan needs to see the cold hard light of reality. As a friend of mine says: it's time to take the bull by the tail and look the situation right in the eye. </p> 
          
      
      <p><a href="/comment/120621h_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120621h.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120621i_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120621i.png"></a></p>
          
	
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
		<thead>
          	    <th scope="col" colspan=8>Italy ISAE Consumer Confidence</th>
  
  </thead>
  
    
      <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
      <td colspan=4>&nbsp;</td>
      Since 1993
      Rank
    
    
      <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
      Jun-12
      May-12
      Apr-12
      Mar-12
      %ile
      Rank
      %ile
    
    <tr>
      <td class="firstcol">Consumer Confidence</td>
      <td>85.3</td>
      <td>86.5</td>
      <td>88.8</td>
      <td>96.1</td>
      <td>0.0</td>
      <td>365</td>
      <td>0.0%</td>
    </tr>
    
      Last 12 Months
    
    <tr>
      <td class="firstcol">OVERALL SITUATION</td>
      <td>-35</td>
      <td>-36</td>
      <td>-42</td>
      <td>-43</td>
      <td>75.7</td>
      <td>116</td>
      <td>68.2%</td>
    </tr>
    
      Next 12 Months
    
    <tr>
      <td class="firstcol">OVERALL SITUATION</td>
      <td>-32</td>
      <td>-25</td>
      <td>-27</td>
      <td>-20</td>
      <td>0.0</td>
      <td>364</td>
      <td>0.3%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td class="firstcol">UNEMPLOYMENT</td>
      <td>35</td>
      <td>32</td>
      <td>30</td>
      <td>23</td>
      <td>93.8</td>
      <td>2</td>
      <td>99.5%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td class="firstcol">HOUSEHOLD BUDGET</td>
      <td>-9</td>
      <td>-7</td>
      <td>-6</td>
      <td>0</td>
      <td>0.0</td>
      <td>365</td>
      <td>0.0%</td>
    </tr>
    
      HOUSEHOLD FIN SITUATION
    
    <tr>
      <td class="firstcol">Last 12 months</td>
      <td>-42</td>
      <td>-41</td>
      <td>-42</td>
      <td>-36</td>
      <td>20.4</td>
      <td>332</td>
      <td>9.0%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td class="firstcol">Next12 months</td>
      <td>-27</td>
      <td>-25</td>
      <td>-28</td>
      <td>-15</td>
      <td>16.3</td>
      <td>360</td>
      <td>1.4%</td>
    </tr>
    
      HOUSEHOLD SAVINGS
    
    <tr>
      <td class="firstcol">Current</td>
      <td>60</td>
      <td>62</td>
      <td>59</td>
      <td>60</td>
      <td>72.6</td>
      <td>35</td>
      <td>90.4%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td class="firstcol">Future</td>
      <td>-37</td>
      <td>-41</td>
      <td>-43</td>
      <td>-35</td>
      <td>23.4</td>
      <td>345</td>
      <td>5.5%</td>
    </tr>
    
      MAJOR Purchases
    
    <tr>
      <td class="firstcol">Current</td>
      <td>-46</td>
      <td>-45</td>
      <td>-50</td>
      <td>-42</td>
      <td>26.9</td>
      <td>273</td>
      <td>25.2%</td>
    </tr>
    
      <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
      Total number of months: 365
      Back to Feb-82
      <td>&nbsp;</td>
    

  


</html>

Italy's consumer confidence looks like it is about plunge right off the chart. The confidence measure has dropped by over one point in June and is at a new all-time low. And as we peruse the components they are disaster-struck. The [...]

Terrible Consumer Sentiment in Italy.....The Movie: Halloween, Italian Style Without Jaime Lee Curtis

PMIs showing widespread revival of global economy

Crude oil price has returned to pre-conflict level but traffic through Hormuz still subpar

Surging orders for computers and electronics propelling durable goods orders

Next year's inflation forecasts are on the rise and above target

Disrupted global supply chains placing upward pressure on US goods prices

Construction of data centers has overtaken transportation construction in US

Elevated energy prices putting intense upward pressure on input prices around the globe

US is big leader in global surge in private AI investment

Larger-than-usual income tax refunds this year are supporting consumer spending

Sharply rising share of AI-related jobs

Inflationary impact of surge in oil prices larger in Europe than in the US

Futures market thinks the price of oil will recede significantly over the next six months

Recent pickup in US defense orders could help support overall growth ahead

Cost of transporting crude oil has soared to series high

Market-based inflation expectations have not yet reflected recent surge in oil prices

Global equity markets are fearing a major economic disruption from soaring oil prices

Is recent drop in sentiment signaling softer growth ahead?

With the Iran conflict, geopolitical risk has soared to alarming levels

Soaring AI-related investment in US underpinning strong contribution of business spending to overall growth

AI-related outperformance of IP in Advanced Asia ex Japan

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

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. 

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

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

Tian Yong Woon

In this week's Letter, we examine the underbelly of the AI boom, the risks that sit beneath its optimism. Start with the public mood: American concern about AI has grown alongside adoption over the past three to four years (chart 1). Those worries span mass job displacement, misuse of top-end models by bad actors, and fears of being left behind. The first of these is already surfacing: in June, AI was again the most cited reason for announced US layoffs, with year-to-date AI-linked cuts above 100,000 (chart 2). Technology led all sectors in overall cuts, though the data do not isolate how many were AI-driven. Among those hit, the young are arguably the most exposed to these labour effects. They enter a labour pool swollen by displaced professionals, just as AI masters the entry-level tasks where they would start. India and Indonesia illustrate the stakes on youth NEET, the share not in education, employment, or training, both above 20% and among Asia's highest (chart 3). Beyond the labour market, the same optimism reshapes asset prices. The rally has lifted AI-related valuations to historic highs and concentrated a few names in cap-weighted indexes (chart 4). That raises correlation and the risk of a sharper index fall should the rally unravel. The same concentration runs through economies via exports, from Taiwan's advanced chips to South Korea's memory (chart 5). Its footprint is physical too, and cuts both ways: data-centre investment has lifted growth in Johor, Malaysia (chart 6) while straining local power and water. None of this argues against riding the AI wave, which still promises real productivity and welfare gains. Rather, these are caveats that investors and policymakers must keep in view, since the story is not all upside.

**AI-related concerns**
AI adoption has exploded over the past three to four years, and Americans' concerns have risen alongside it (chart 1). That is understandable, given how advanced and broad AI's proven applications have become. They now span everyday tasks and subject-specific work across fields such as finance and production, as well as tech and development, the sector AI was born in. Major concerns run from mass AI-induced job displacement to a more recent fear, that top-end models fall into the wrong hands and are used by bad actors. A further worry is distributional: AI advances are powerful and could deliver leaps in productivity, yet they may also leave many people behind. Those most exposed include workers already displaced from their jobs and people facing scarcer basic resources as AI demand competes for them. Others simply lack equitable access to AI tools or their benefits.

260713T1.jpg

**AI-driven job displacement**
Some of the fears US workers first had about AI-driven job displacement are already playing out. In June, AI was again the most cited reason for announced job cuts in the US (chart 2). That pushed year-to-date job cuts attributed to AI above 100,000, more than half of all AI-tagged cuts since AI became a selectable reason in 2023. The data come from the latest survey by Challenger, Gray & Christmas. This likely reflects AI's disproportionately heavy impact on certain industries such as technology, which again led all sectors in cuts. At the same time, announced hiring plans stayed subdued, leaving laid-off workers with limited opportunities to find new roles. All of this is occurring even as market valuations remain elevated on the broader wave of AI optimism.

260713T2.jpg

**AI and youth unemployment**
Arguably among those bearing the brunt of these labour-related effects are the youth. Many have graduated on a curriculum built largely for a pre-AI era. They now enter a labour pool swollen by experienced professionals whom AI has displaced. At the same time, AI is proving especially capable at the entry-level tasks on which young workers usually start. An elevated youth unemployment rate only intensifies the competition young people face for gainful employment. On the broader NEET measure, which also captures youth who are neither working nor studying, India and Indonesia stand out. On the latest available WDI data, both have youth NEET rates above 20%, among the highest in Asia and above the global average (chart 3). Should employers in these economies adopt AI aggressively across processes and production, including physical AI such as humanoid robots, the problem could worsen. Yet firms that stay purely labour-intensive risk losing out to rivals using more efficient, and perhaps cheaper, AI-driven methods.

260713T3.jpg

**Concentration risk**
The recent wave of AI optimism has pushed the equity valuations of major AI developers and AI-related goods producers to historically high levels. These gains are partly backed by strong earnings and upbeat forward guidance. Most major indexes are weighted by market capitalisation, so a counter's weight tracks its price. As these counters have outperformed their peers (chart 4), their index weight has risen close to mechanically, when holding the number of shares constant. This raises concentration risk, since a small group of counters now carries more of the index and moves it more closely. So, if the rally in these counters were to unravel deeply, it would drag the broader index down more heavily with it.

260713T4.jpg

AI-related concentration risk is not confined to equity indexes; it also shows up in the growth of major economies. In Asia, that risk usually runs through a country's exports. Take Taiwan, the world's largest advanced semiconductor exporter, as an example. As chart 5 shows, its recent export growth has come more than entirely from integrated circuits and from infocomm and audiovisual equipment. Other goods categories have often contributed negatively in recent months. This is good news for the Taiwanese economy, which sits right at the centre of the global AI boom. Yet it is also a source of concentration risk, should AI-related goods demand collapse or substantial alternative supply emerge elsewhere. A similar story applies to South Korea, through its role in supplying high-end memory chips.

260713T5.jpg

**Data centres, energy, and water**
Finally, rapidly advancing AI promises major productivity gains and broad improvements to daily life. Yet AI infrastructure rests on resource-intensive inputs: the energy needed for data centre compute, and the water needed to cool those centres. Both may deprive real people of the very resources they need to survive. One recent hotspot is Malaysia, which has courted a wave of foreign direct investment to expand its data centre footprint in the state of Johor. These capital inflows are welcome, and have lifted state-level growth through the construction sector (chart 6). But they have also raised concerns about straining local grids and water supplies, possibly leaving less for residents. Among estimates, a recent one puts data centres at around 40% of Johor's electricity demand by 2035. That is pressuring the state to expand generation capacity and grid access to match the data centre pipeline already in place. Its neighbour Singapore faced similar strains earlier, and has since repositioned itself as a hub for the most advanced and efficient data centres, partly because of its severe land constraints. 

260713T6.jpg

Asia

Economic Letter from Asia: The AI Underbelly

260714E.jpg

Industrial output in Norway fell by 1% in May after rising by 0.6 in April and falling by 1.1% in March. The seesaw act for output continues. Over broader horizons, however, output is falling. It falls by 0.1% over 12 months, falls at a 1.1% annual rate over six months, and falls at a 6.2% annual rate over three months, giving us a clear sequential trend toward falling and decelerating output. Utilities output has chaotic trends, as do mining and quarrying; however, manufacturing shows a clear trend toward output acceleration, with a 2.1% output increase over 12 months, a 2.6% annual rate rise over six months, and a 9% annual rate increase over three months.

Manufacturing sectors show consumer goods output increasing in May, also showing secular acceleration from 12 months to six months to three months. Durable goods, however, are the fly in the ointment, with output up 2.2% over 12 months, accelerating over six months, and then dropping at a 20.4% annual rate over three months. However, consumer nondurables show growth and acceleration, with a 12-month gain of 1.8%, rising to a 3.6% annual rate increase over six months and a 10.9% annual rate increase over three months. Intermediate goods output trends return to more difficult times and show declines over 12 months, six months, and three months, but not a clear path of deceleration. Capital goods output is up 5.4% over 12 months and at an 8.5% annual rate over three months, but there is an intervening soft spot with output up at only a 3.4% annual rate over six months.

Against this background, inflation in Norway showed solid increases in May, rising by 0.2% overall and by 0.3% for the core HICP. However, sequentially inflation gains 3% over 12 months, rises at a 3.8% annual rate over six months, and then backs down to a 1.2% annual rate over three months. The core HICP is steadier, with a 3.4% gain over 12 months, rising to a 3.8% annual rate over six months, and then backing down to 3.2% at an annual rate over three months. That's a set of growth rates that are more stable than either accelerating or decelerating.

In the quarter-to-date (QTD) basis, industrial production is falling 4.6%; this is two months into the second quarter. On the other hand, manufacturing output is rising QTD at a 4.9% annual rate, with consumer nondurables showing strong positive growth along with intermediate goods output. There is a solid gain of 3.1% at an annual rate from capital goods. The QTD inflation trends remain somewhat mixed, with a weak headline showing a 1.6% annual rate, against a core HICP at a 3.4% annual rate rise, the latter gain being well in step with its sequential results.

The far right-hand column compares industrial production over the broad period from just before COVID (in January 2020) looking at the ratio of the level of output in May 2026 to its index value in January 2020. Remember that IP data are inflation-adjusted, so these are real data. Over this span, industrial production excluding construction is up by approximately 10%, with utilities output up at about 21%, mining and quarrying up about 5%, and manufacturing up a little more than 7%. This is a 5½-year period. Consumer goods output is up by 2.7%, led by consumer nondurables which rise 4.1% on the period and against durable goods output where there is a decline of about 13% on that timeline. Intermediate goods output drops slightly on the timeline by less than half a percentage point, while capital goods output is up at a solid and strong 23% gain. Looking at prices over the same period, the headline HICP is higher by 27% while the core is higher by 24%.

The weakened output shows the stresses and strains of the period, with weak gains in place over the last 5½ years and with the consumer showing considerable wear and tear, leaving consumer goods output lower on balance over this 5½-year span. It hasn't been such a bad time for capital goods, where output rose by 23% over the period. Inflation got out-of-the-box and grew quite strongly. The headline HICP grew by 27% at a time when sticking to its target would have implied a gain in the price level of only 11.5%.

**Ongoing overshooting**
Even now central banks are trying to decide how to come to grips with the inflation pressures from that. Pressures continue to linger and threaten the economies. Of course, there are some new factors in place, but that's the nature of inflation: if it's not one thing, it's something else. And failing to respond to the one thing means that you're going to get hit even worse when it becomes something else. This is the lesson the central banks haven't learned during this period. 

**Have central banks learned their lesson?**
Noting that inflation is over target and then forecasting that it's going to come back down to target over some period ahead puts the inflation performance at risk to whatever happens between now and the end of that period ‘ahead.’ If that forecast isn't perfectly right and if there's something else that disturbs the path of prices, what will happen is that an inflation that is already over the top of the target will push even farther over the top of the target and the dilemma faced by the central bank will become even worse. This is why kicking the can down the road generally is not a very good strategy, but it's one that virtually all the central banks pursued in the wake of COVID. So, will central bankers come to see inflation that is here and now as a here-and-now problem to be addressed here and now, or as a candidate for tomorrow land? The ECB seems to be changing, and the Fed has formed task forces. What about Norway and the rest of the world? Norway did push its target rate up as the ECB hiked. But what is its plan?

260713.jpg

Norway

Norwegian IP Struggles, but Manufacturing Shows Some Strength

260710E.jpg

Manufacturing output in the countries of the European Monetary Union continues to underperform. The median change for the 11 countries reporting on the table is a 0.5% decline in May following a 0.3% increase in April. However, only 41.7% of the reporters are accelerating in May, compared to 25% in April, although in March over half of the reporters had showed some acceleration, with output at 61.5%.

In May, of these eleven early reporters, seven showed month-to-month declines in output. This compares to four showing declines in April and four showing declines in March.

**Sequential trends**
Over 12 months, output is declining in four of these eleven countries: Germany, Luxembourg, Ireland, and Portugal. Over six months, output declines in five of the eleven countries. Over three months, output declines in four of the eleven countries. Over these broader sequential periods, output is increasing in most cases; only one country, Ireland, shows consistent declines in output over three months, six months, and 12 months. However, among EMU countries, only Italy shows output expanding on all three timelines, although Sweden, an EU member country, also shows output increasing in all three periods.

Amid the output weakness in May, the quarter-to-date calculation for industrial production growth is also broadly weak. In May, seven of the eleven quarter-to-date changes in industrial production are negative. Positive results, increases in the quarter-to-date, are registered by Germany, Luxembourg, Greece, and Portugal.

The ranking of the year-over-year growth rates shows seven countries with output growth rate rankings below 50%, marking them as below their respective medians. The comparisons for output growth are taken back to 2006, a period of about 20 years.

Four EMU countries rank above their twenty-year medians: France, Italy, Luxembourg, and Greece.

The snapshot of industry in the monetary union is consistent, showing little momentum, little strength, and relatively low rankings for current growth rates; only a minority of reporters show an acceleration in growth in May compared to April. With the situation in the Strait of Hormuz deteriorating again, the outlook for industrial production has to remain guarded.

260710.jpg

Europe

Industrial Sector Remains Under Pressure in EMU

Andrew Cates

**Growth Surprises Continue to Underpin Equity Resilience**
Global equity markets have proved remarkably resilient in recent weeks, shrugging off intermittent bouts of geopolitical and policy uncertainty to grind higher. Chart 1 below helps explain why: it tracks the relationship between global growth-versus-inflation surprises and world equity markets, and on that measure the recent run of global growth data has continued to surprise on the upside relative to inflation outturns — a combination that has historically been supportive for risk assets. Whether that resilience persists will depend on whether the growth-surprise advantage evident in the chart below can be sustained in the face of the inflationary pressures explored below.

260709Z1.jpg

**PMIs Confirm a Broadly Solid Global Expansion**
This week's final composite PMI readings for June reinforced the broader impression of resilient global growth. As chart 2 below shows, most major economies posted readings comfortably in expansionary territory, with India continuing to lead the pack and the US not far behind. Even the laggards in the sample are hovering close to the expansion threshold rather than falling decisively below it, suggesting stabilisation rather than outright contraction (and with the UK a notable exception).

260709Z2.jpg

**Inflation Surprises Are Creeping Back, and Bond Yields Are Taking Notice**
The US growth picture painted by Haver's surprise indices broadly echoes the message from the global PMI data. Chart 3 below shows the combined growth-and-inflation surprise index drifting higher this week, and closer inspection suggests growth is doing most of that work, with activity data continuing to outperform expectations. That is, on the face of it, good news. But it has not stopped bond markets from taking notice: short-dated Treasury yields have remained elevated in recent weeks, as stronger growth keeps alive the possibility that the Federal Reserve holds rates higher for longer or even lifts them in coming weeks.

260709Z3.jpg

**Supply Chains Are Tightening** 
Latest data show that global supply chain pressures tightened by less in June than they had the month before, likely reflecting the easing of Middle East tensions through much of the period. Chart 4 below shows that pressures troughed in the middle of last year and have been building gradually since, though June's slower pace of tightening suggests that easing had started to feed through. Still, today's flare-up threatens to undo that improvement, particularly if it affects shipping routes or energy flows through the region once again.

260709Z4.jpg

**Extreme Weather: An Old Supply-Side Risk Returns**
Geopolitics is not the only source of supply-side risk currently in play. Large parts of Europe have been gripped this week by another intense and prolonged heatwave, with temperatures in several major cities running well above seasonal norms. Extreme heat of this kind carries real economic costs: it depresses labour productivity, particularly in outdoor and manufacturing-adjacent sectors, strains electricity grids as air-conditioning demand spikes, and can disrupt agricultural output and river-based transport when water levels fall. Episodes like this have become more frequent in recent years, and while any single heatwave rarely shifts the macro picture on its own, the cumulative effect of more frequent and more severe weather events could start showing up in productivity and inflation data across the advanced economies. It is a reminder that the supply side of the global economy faces structural as well as cyclical challenges, and that climate-related disruption deserves a permanent place alongside geopolitics and demographics in any assessment of medium-term inflation risk.

260709Z5.jpg

**AI Investment: The Other Side of the Supply Equation**
Set against these supply-side headwinds is a genuinely positive structural development: the extraordinary scale of private investment now flowing into artificial intelligence. Chart 6 below shows just how sharply that investment has grown in recent years, reaching a fresh high last year. If even a fraction of that investment translates into genuine productivity gains, it could provide a meaningful long-run offset to the energy, climate and geopolitical constraints highlighted elsewhere in this week's charts. The scale of the bet now being placed on AI is large enough that it is beginning to show up in aggregate investment and capital expenditure data across the advanced economies, and it is likely to remain one of the defining structural themes shaping the global growth outlook over the remainder of this decade.

260709Z6.jpg

Global markets head into this week’s closing stages digesting a mixed set of signals. Last week's US non-farm payrolls report undershot expectations, adding to questions about the durability of the US labour market even as broader activity data have continued to hold up well. Compounding that picture, news broke today of renewed instability in the Middle East, reintroducing a geopolitical risk premium into markets just as investors had begun to look past it. Global equity markets have nonetheless remained resilient, continuing to track the broadly encouraging tone of incoming activity data (chart 1). That resilience was reinforced by a solid set of global PMIs across most major economies over the past few days (chart 2). Haver's surprise indices tell a similar story of positive growth momentum in the US, but with an important caveat: incoming inflation data have also been surprising to the upside, driven largely by higher oil prices  (chart 3). These inflation risks could persist moreover, as global supply chain pressures have picked up in recent months and today's flare-up in the Middle East threatens to add further strain (chart 4). The world economy remains vulnerable to other supply-side shocks too, such as the extreme heat gripping much of Europe this week (chart 5). Still, on the other side of the ledger the enormous scale of investment now flowing into artificial intelligence could be a genuine source of supply-side potential (chart 6).

<iframe data-testid="embed-iframe" style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/0dl4LKZaL1oTC5UPIaqrA9?utm_source=generator&si=7aa69345dbfd4ac4" width="100%" height="152" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" loading="lazy"></iframe> 

Charts of the Week: Growth Holds Firm

Winnie Tapasanun

260709F57.jpg

260709G57.jpg

Existing home sales unexpectedly fell 2.4% m/m (+2.8% y/y) to 4.09 million units (SAAR) in June, the first monthly decline since March, following an upwardly revised 3.7% increase to 4.19 million in May (previously +3.2%; 4.17 mil.), according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). The Action Economics Forecast Survey had expected June sales of 4.20 million units. Sales remained 36.4% below a high of 6.43 million in January 2022 and 38.0% below a peak of 6.60 million in January 2021. The June decline coincided with a rise in the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate to 6.49% in June, the highest since August 2025, after increasing to 6.44% in May, 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 fell 2.4% (+3.3% y/y) to 3.73 million units in June, the first m/m fall in three months, following a 4.1% gain to 3.82 million in May, remaining 34.6% below a high of 5.70 million in January 2022. Sales of condos and co-ops decreased 2.7% (-2.7% y/y) to 360,000 in June, the lowest level since May 2025, after being unchanged m/m for the third successive month at 370,000, remaining 50.7% below a high of 730,000 in January 2022.

Regionally, June existing home sales declined m/m in all regions except the Northeast. Sales in the South dropped 3.6% (+3.8% y/y) to 1.89 million in June, a three-month low, after a 3.2% rise in May, and sales in the Midwest slid 3.0% (+2.1% y/y) to 980,000 following a 7.4% May advance; both posted the first m/m decrease in three months. Sales in the West fell 1.3% (+2.8% y/y) to 740,000, the lowest level since January, after being flat m/m at 750,000 in May. In contrast, sales in the Northeast increased 2.1% (0.0% y/y) to 480,000 after a 4.4% May gain. Notably, the South remained the dominant region, accounting for 46.2% of total U.S. existing home sales.

The median price of all existing homes (NSA) rose 2.2% (1.8% y/y) to $440,600 in June, the fifth consecutive m/m rise, on top of an upwardly revised 3.3% increase to $431,200 in May ($429,300 previously). Prices were 22.1% above a low of $360,800 in January 2023. The median price of an existing single-family home climbed 2.3% (1.8% y/y) to $446,400 in June, the fifth straight m/m increase, after a 3.4% advance to $436,400 in May. The median price of condos and co-ops, up for the sixth time in seven months, grew 0.6% (1.6% y/y) to $380,000 following a 1.0% May gain to $377,800. Regionally, overall prices rose m/m and y/y in June in the Northeast (+5.6%; +3.9% y/y), Midwest (+2.1%; +2.7% y/y), South (+1.0%; +0.9% y/y), and West (+0.8%; +0.9% y/y). All these price series were at their record highs.

Inventories of homes for sale fell m/m in June for the first time since December. The number of existing homes for sale (NSA) declined 0.6% (+1.3% y/y) to 1.56 million units following an upwardly revised 4.7% May rise to 1.57 million (the highest level since November 2019). The supply of homes on the market at the current selling rate (NSA) increased to 4.6 months in June from 4.5 months in May and April, matching the highest level since August 2025. 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.

260709H57.jpg

260709I57.jpg

- June sales -2.4% m/m to 4.09 mil., first drop in three mths.; +2.8% y/y, third straight y/y rise.
- Sales m/m down in the South (-3.6%), Midwest (-3.0%), and West (-1.3%); up in the Northeast (+2.1%).
- Sales y/y up in all regions except the Northeast w/ a flat reading.
- Median sales price +2.2% (+1.8% y/y) to $440,600, a record high.
- Unsold inventory -0.6% (+1.3% y/y) to 1.56 mil. units, first m/m decline since Dec.; 4.6 months' supply, highest since Aug. ’25.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

U.S. Consumer Confidence Declines As Expectations Diminish

U.S. Case-Shiller Home Price Index Strengthens

U.S. Petroleum Prices Slide Yet Again

Brazilian Consumers Still More Confident Than Business

U.S. New Home Sales Improve; Prices Decline

U.S. Chicago Fed Index Is Negative Again

U.S. Chicago Fed Index Is Negative Again

Terrible Consumer Sentiment in Italy.....The Movie: Halloween, Italian Style Without Jaime Lee Curtis