Tom Moeller

<!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/100322a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="363">
Weather constraints on U.S. economic growth abated last month,
according to the Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) from the
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Their index rose to -0.07 and
recovered all of its February decline. The increase added to earlier
gains from the series' low of -4.14 reached in January '09. During the
last ten years the has been a 76% correlation between the index level
and the q/q change in real GDP.
The three-month moving average of the index, which
smoothes out some of the series' volatility, also improved to -0.18.
An index level at or below -0.70 typically has indicated
negative U.S. economic growth. A zero value of the CFNAI indicates that
the economy is expanding at its historical trend rate of growth of
roughly 3.0%. The complete CFNAI report is available <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/cfnai/2010/cfnai_april2010.pdf">here</a>.
The Chicago Fed indicated that rebounds in the employment and
in the production components contributed to the total index
improvement. Overall, 50 of the 85 individual indicators made positive
contributions to the index while 34 made negative contributions. The
CFNAI is a weighted average of 85 indicators of economic activity. The
indicators reflect activity in the following categories: production
&amp; income, the labor market, personal consumption &amp;
housing, manufacturing &amp; trade sales, and inventories &amp;
orders.
In a separate survey, the Chicago Fed indicated that its
Midwest manufacturing index improved during February to its highest
level since December 2008. Indicators for the auto, steel, machinery
and resource sectors each rose. The Chicago Federal Reserve figures are
available in Haver's SURVEYS database.

<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100429b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100429c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a ;="" href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S5/@S503/@S503.HTM">Chicago Fed</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">March '09</th>
<th scope="col">2009</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">CFNAI</td>
<td>-0.07</td>
<td>-0.44</td>
<td>-0.05</td>
<td>-3.37</td>
<td>-1.62</td>
<td>-1.79</td>
<td>-0.35</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; 3-Month Moving
Average</td>
<td>-0.18</td>
<td>-0.31</td>
<td>-0.11</td>
<td>-3.33</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Personal Consumption &amp; Housing&nbsp;</td>
<td>-0.42</td>
<td>-0.41</td>
<td>-0.45</td>
<td>-0.56</td>
<td>-0.49</td>
<td>-0.32</td>
<td>-0.09</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Employment, Unemployment &amp; Hours</td>
<td>0.12</td>
<td>-0.13</td>
<td>0.05</td>
<td>-1.45</td>
<td>-0.76</td>
<td>-0.67</td>
<td>-0.15</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Production &amp; Income</td>
<td>0.18</td>
<td>0.04</td>
<td>0.44</td>
<td>-0.99</td>
<td>-0.24</td>
<td>-0.56</td>
<td>-0.05</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Sales, Inventories &amp; Orders</td>
<td>0.06</td>
<td>0.06</td>
<td>-0.06</td>
<td>-0.38</td>
<td>-0.14</td>
<td>-0.25</td>
<td>-0.06</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Weather constraints on U.S. economic growth abated last month, according to the Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Their index rose to -0.07 and recovered all of its February decline. [...]

Chicago Fed Index Improves Modestly

<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/100322a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="363">
Weather constraints on U.S. economic growth abated last month,
according to the Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) from the
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Their index rose to -0.07 and
recovered all of its February decline. The increase added to earlier
gains from the series' low of -4.14 reached in January '09. During the
last ten years the has been a 76% correlation between the index level
and the q/q change in real GDP.
The three-month moving average of the index, which
smoothes out some of the series' volatility, also improved to -0.18.
An index level at or below -0.70 typically has indicated
negative U.S. economic growth. A zero value of the CFNAI indicates that
the economy is expanding at its historical trend rate of growth of
roughly 3.0%. The complete CFNAI report is available <a 
 href="http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/cfnai/2010/cfnai_april2010.pdf">here</a>.
The Chicago Fed indicated that rebounds in the employment and
in the production components contributed to the total index
improvement. Overall, 50 of the 85 individual indicators made positive
contributions to the index while 34 made negative contributions. The
CFNAI is a weighted average of 85 indicators of economic activity. The
indicators reflect activity in the following categories: production
&amp; income, the labor market, personal consumption &amp;
housing, manufacturing &amp; trade sales, and inventories &amp;
orders.
In a separate survey, the Chicago Fed indicated that its
Midwest manufacturing index improved during February to its highest
level since December 2008. Indicators for the auto, steel, machinery
and resource sectors each rose. The Chicago Federal Reserve figures are
available in Haver's SURVEYS database.

<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100429b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100429c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
 <colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
 <thead><tr>
 <th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a ;=""
 href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S5/@S503/@S503.HTM">Chicago
Fed</a></th>
 <th scope="col">March</th>
 <th scope="col">February</th>
 <th scope="col">January</th>
 <th scope="col">March '09</th>
 <th scope="col">2009</th>
 <th scope="col">2008</th>
 <th scope="col">2007</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol">CFNAI</td>
 <td>-0.07</td>
 <td>-0.44</td>
 <td>-0.05</td>
 <td>-3.37</td>
 <td>-1.62</td>
 <td>-1.79</td>
 <td>-0.35</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol">&nbsp; 3-Month Moving
Average</td>
 <td>-0.18</td>
 <td>-0.31</td>
 <td>-0.11</td>
 <td>-3.33</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>--</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Personal Consumption &amp; Housing&nbsp;</td>
 <td>-0.42</td>
 <td>-0.41</td>
 <td>-0.45</td>
 <td>-0.56</td>
 <td>-0.49</td>
 <td>-0.32</td>
 <td>-0.09</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Employment, Unemployment &amp; Hours</td>
 <td>0.12</td>
 <td>-0.13</td>
 <td>0.05</td>
 <td>-1.45</td>
 <td>-0.76</td>
 <td>-0.67</td>
 <td>-0.15</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Production &amp; Income</td>
 <td>0.18</td>
 <td>0.04</td>
 <td>0.44</td>
 <td>-0.99</td>
 <td>-0.24</td>
 <td>-0.56</td>
 <td>-0.05</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Sales, Inventories &amp; Orders</td>
 <td>0.06</td>
 <td>0.06</td>
 <td>-0.06</td>
 <td>-0.38</td>
 <td>-0.14</td>
 <td>-0.25</td>
 <td>-0.06</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>
U.S. Unemployment Insurance Claims
Fall To Last Month's Low 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> April 29, 2010


<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100429d.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
The job market is on the mend. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported that initial claims for jobless insurance fell 11,000 to
448,000 after the prior week's revised 21,000 drop. The latest level
equaled the March average and roughly matched Consensus expectations
for a decline to 445,000 claims. Last week's figure was down from the
recession peak of 651,000 reached in March of 2009. The four-week
moving average of initial claims nudged up to 462,500.
A 18,000 decline in continuing claims for unemployment
insurance during the latest week added to a revised 23,000 drop during
the prior week. They were down by one-third from the June '09 peak. The
overall decline is a function of the improved job market but also
reflects the exhaustion of 26 weeks of unemployment benefits.
Continuing claims provide an indication of workers' ability to find
employment. The four-week average of continuing claims also fell to a
cycle low of 4.639 mil. This series dates back to 1966.
Extended benefits for unemployment insurance increased to
202,215. However, they were down by three-quarters from a peak of
597,688 reached in November.
The insured unemployment rate held steady at 3.6%. The rate
reached a high of 4.9% during May. During the last ten years, there has
been a 96% correlation between the level of the insured unemployment
rate and the overall rate of unemployment published by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending
April 10 were in Alaska (6.6 percent), Puerto Rico (6.4), Oregon (5.9),
Wisconsin (5.6), Pennsylvania (5.4), Nevada (5.2), California (5.0),
Idaho (5.0), Montana (5.0), Michigan (4.9), and North Carolina (4.9).
The lowest insured unemployment rates were in Virginia (1.8), Texas
(2.2), Georgia (2.9), Florida (3.1), Maryland (3.2), Wyoming (3.2),
Ohio (3.5), New York (3.7) and Maine (3.9). These data are not
seasonally adjusted but the overall insured unemployment rate is.
The unemployment insurance claims data is available in Haver's
WEEKLY database and the state data is in the REGIONW
database.
Employment Survey Delivers JOLTS from the
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta can be found <a 
 href="http://www.frbatlanta.org/documents/pubs/econsouth/q110econsouth.pdf#page=8">here</a>.

<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100429e.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100429f.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
 <colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
 <thead><tr>
 <th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a 
 ;=""
 href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM"
 style="color: black;">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
 <th scope="col">04/24/10</th>
 <th scope="col">04/17/10</th>
 <th scope="col">04/10/10</th>
 <th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
 <th scope="col">2009</th>
 <th scope="col">2008</th>
 <th scope="col">2007</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
 <td>448</td>
 <td>459</td>
 <td>480</td>
 <td>-28.1%</td>
 <td>572</td>
 <td>419</td>
 <td>321</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>4,645</td>
 <td>4,663</td>
 <td>-25.2%</td>
 <td>5,809</td>
 <td>3,340</td>
 <td>2,549</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol">Insured Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>3.6</td>
 <td>3.6</td>
 <td>4.6(4/2009)</td>
 <td>4.4</td>
 <td>2.5</td>
 <td>1.9</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>
Globally Money Growth Is Just Not
Getting Into Gear. So Where&#8217;s The Real Risk? 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> April 29, 2010


<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100429g.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
Money growth rates in Europe are starting to edge higher, but
ever so slowly. At a 2.2% annual rate pace over three months compared
to a 1.5% pace Yr/Yr is not much of an acceleration. Credit growth is
however weaker over three months than over 12-months. In the US money
growth is decelerating. In Japan it&#8217;s decelerating. In the UK, where
inflation has started to flash some less than comfortable numbers,
there is an issue. Money growth is in a major acceleration in the UK
for M4 which is up at nearly a 40% annual rate pace over three months.
While the growth rates are different, the main themes remain
in tact when we look at the growth rates of real money balances - money
growth deflated by inflation.
Basically money is not much of a stimulant anywhere except in
the UK.
Still we have great concerns among some economists that the
fiscal spending and coming monetary excesses (paradoxically, fiscal
issues already are taking what must be regarded as a deflationary toll
in Europe) will result in a bout of inflation. For the most part,
market pricing does not see that risk. Some of the hardest-money
economists still are very worried. Some worry that the economy will
recover and banks will begin to loan and this excess of reserves at the
Fed will be unleashed into something that can become a torrent of
inflation.
Then, others among us worry about getting hit by meteors from
outer space.
While a cyclical pick up in lending is something we do expect
in every business cycle, right now bankers are hunkered down. It is
very hard to see how they are going to turn the lending spigot from a
slow drip to full throttle in some quick fashion. Bank lending
committees are notoriously slow in shifting their policy stance. The US
economy and the European economies have a huge amount of slack.
Conservative hard-money economists also point out that a lot of
capacity was destroyed in the economic downturn. They warn that capital
may appear to be less utilized than it really is. While that is a good
point it is largely academic. The amount of slack in the economy is so
great it&#8217;s like warning that the other rim of the Grand Canyon might be
five feet closer than we thought so be careful about what might want to
&#8216;fit inside of it.&#8217;
There will come a time to worry about these things. But
unemployment in Europe is high. In the US 8.5 million people net were
taken off the job rolls. In addition, many first-time job seekers were
not able to find work. There is a great deal of slack. Money supply
growth is slow. Europe&#8217;s fiscal situation has deteriorated making it a
drag on the outlook despite some recent upbeat reports on growth. The
question of the role of the deterioration in confidence in the e-Zone
will play out over months not over hours. The US has its own fiscal
challenge which will make public policy more contractionary ahead. Why
all the worry about excess stimulus and inflation?
For the time being, despite high oil prices and some pressures
on commodity prices, we have to signal the &#8216;all clear&#8217; on the inflation
front. Not enough growth remains as the near term clear and present
danger. Inflation always lurks but it is, for the moment, unarmed and
not very dangerous. Inflation is more lost in the woods and confused
than it is dangerously lurking in some dark alley-way to mug an
unsuspecting policymaker.


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr><th colspan="8" scope="col"> Look at Global and Euro Liquidity Trends</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp;Saar-all</td>
<td colspan="3">Euro Measures (E13):
Money &amp; Credit</td>
<td colspan="3">G-10 Major Markets:
Money</td>
<td>Memo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&#8364;-Supply M2</td>
<td>Credit:Resid</td>
<td>Loans</td>
<td>$US M2</td>
<td>&#163;UK M4</td>
<td>&#165;Jpn M2+Cds</td>
<td>OIL:WTI</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; 3-MO</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
<td>39.5%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>38.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; 6-MO</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>19.5%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>35.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; 12-MO</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>10.6%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>70.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; 2Yr</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
<td>13.7%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>-12.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; 3Yr</td>
<td>6.4%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>13.0%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>10.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Real Balances: deflated
by Own CPI. Oil deflated by US CPI</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; 3-MO</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-2.5%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>-2.4%</td>
<td>32.8%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>37.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; 6-MO</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>-2.9%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>14.7%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>33.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; 12-MO</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>-1.9%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>66.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; 2Yr</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>10.2%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>-13.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; 3Yr</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>9.8%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>8.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Japan's March CPI is
estimated to complete this table; The February value is used</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Robert Brusca

<!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 alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100428d.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
Japan&#8217;s retail sales have made another strong monthly gain. In
the just-completed quarter, nominal retail sales are rising at an 11.3%
annual rate over the previous quarter&#8217;s level. Gains are strong across
the major retail categories we follow in the table above.
We are looking at the strongest Yr/Yr gains in Japan&#8217;s retail
sales in well over a decade. The results are a breath of fresh air amid
the sorts of news we are dealing with in markets today. News of Japan&#8217;s
strengthening economy is being submerged by the Goldman Sachs inquiry
and testimonies, the Greek relapse, the downgrading of Portugal and by
Germany&#8217;s reluctance to approve the disbursement of funds for Greece.
As the European circus goes on, few eyes are cast to Asia.
Japan&#8217;s improvement is a welcome sign, however. This not just a better
economic report from Japan, but it is also evidence that the Japanese
consumer has finally emerged to spend. We are still waiting for the
same sort of thing to happen in Europe where the recovery remains
largely an industrial and export-led recovery without much consumer
participation.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="9" scope="col">Japan
Retail Sales Trends </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Mar-10</td>
<td>Feb-10</td>
<td>Jan-10</td>
<td>3-mo</td>
<td>6-mo</td>
<td>12-mo</td>
<td>Yr-Ago</td>
<td>Q-to-Date</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total SA</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>15.9%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>-12.5%</td>
<td>11.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;" class="grey2">
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol">Not
seasonally adjusted</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total: Nominal</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>17.4%</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>-13.0%</td>
<td>14.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Motor
Vehicles</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>14.0%</td>
<td>22.0%</td>
<td>18.2%</td>
<td>-16.3%</td>
<td>9.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Food&amp; Beverage</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>15.1%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>12.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Fabric
apparel&amp; access</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>20.7%</td>
<td>10.3%</td>
<td>8.0%</td>
<td>-15.3%</td>
<td>24.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rest of
Retail</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>19.2%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>-20.2%</td>
<td>15.5%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Japan’s retail sales have made another strong monthly gain. In the just-completed quarter, nominal retail sales are rising at an 11.3% annual rate over the previous quarter’s level. Gains are strong across the major retail categories [...]

Japan’s Retail Sales Are On The Road To Recovery

Louise Curley

<!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 alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427l.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">France,
Germany, Italy and Switzerland released indicators of consumer
confidence today.&nbsp; The latest data for the Swiss indicator,
the UBS Consumption Indicator, are for March.&nbsp; Those for
Italy, ISAE's consumer survey, and France, INSEE's household survey,
are for April and those for Germany, GfK's consumer climate survey,
May.
After some loss of confidence at the end of last year and
early
this year, due largely to the rise in energy prices, consumer
confidence in Switzerland, Italy and Germany has recovered as can be
seen in the first chart.&nbsp; French consumers, however, have on
balance become more negative, as shown in the second chart.&nbsp;
It should be noted that since its inception in April, 1986, that the
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427m.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">only
time the non seasonally adjusted French measure of consumer
confidence has reported a positive balance of opinion was during the
period from July 1999 to May 2001, as seen in the second
chart.&nbsp; The average balance of opinion over the whole span is
-18.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 The measures of consumer confidence vary from
country to country.&nbsp; Balances of opinion in German and France,
an index with a base year of 1980 for Italy and a so-called index for
Switzerland.&nbsp; The Swiss indicator has no base year and is an
index in the sense that "it points to, identifies or highlights a
particular trend or condition" (Definition of index, no.3 in Chambers
21st Century Dictionary).&nbsp; One way to judge current values is
to relate them to the average of the data over its history, which is
shown in the last column of the following table.&nbsp; Consumer
confident in Germany at 3.8 in May is above its long term average of
3.3, as is Swiss consumer confidence, which in March was 1.708 compared
with its long term average of 1.501.&nbsp; In April, French
consumer confidence at -37 was well below its long term average of -18
while Italian consumer confidence of 107.7 was&nbsp; moderately
below its long term average of 112.7
(1980=100).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">May 10&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 10&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 10</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 10</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 10</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 09</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 09</th>
<th scope="col">Average*</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany: GFK
Consumer Climate % Bal</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.6</td>
<td>3.9</td>
<td>3.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France: INSEE
Household Survey</td>
<td>&nbsp;--</td>
<td>-37</td>
<td>-35</td>
<td>-34</td>
<td>-29</td>
<td>-33</td>
<td>-32</td>
<td>-18</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Italy: ISAE
Consumer Survey1980=100</td>
<td>&nbsp;--</td>
<td>107.7</td>
<td>105.3</td>
<td>107.2</td>
<td>112.1</td>
<td>111.2</td>
<td>111.2</td>
<td>112.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Switzerland: UBS
Consumption Indicator</td>
<td>&nbsp;--</td>
<td>&nbsp;--</td>
<td>1.708</td>
<td>1.201</td>
<td>1.322</td>
<td>1.201</td>
<td>1.279</td>
<td>1.501</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol" colspan="9">*Average
over the span
of available
data</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

</body></html>

France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland released indicators of consumer confidence today. The latest data for the Swiss indicator, the UBS Consumption Indicator, are for March. Those for Italy, ISAE's consumer survey, and France, [...]

An Assortment Of Consumer Confidence Indicators

<!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 alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427i.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
Improvement in consumers' mood continued this month according
to the Conference Board. Their consumer confidence index rose 10.7% m/m
to 57.9, its highest level since September 2008. The gain handily
outpaced the Consensus expectation for a rise to 53.5. During the last
ten years there has been an 86% correlation between the level of
consumer confidence and the y/y change in real consumer spending. The
Conference Board data can be found in Haver's CBDB
database.
Consumers' assessment of the present situation jumped 13.5%
m/m after a similar March rise, off a near-record low. Jobs were seen
as hard to get by a reduced 45.0% of respondents but jobs were seen as
plentiful by only 4.8%. That was up just slightly from the series'
historic low reached in November. Also improved was the percentage of
respondents who saw business conditions as good. The percentage of
consumers who thought business conditions were bad fell to 40.2%, off
ten points from its peak during the recession.
The expectations component of confidence also improved m/m to
its highest level just before the recession. Improved expectations for
employment led the gain but expectations for business conditions and
income rose just slightly. Expectations for the inflation rate in
twelve months slipped to 5.3% and that remained down from last year's
high of 7.7%. Interest rates in twelve months were expected to be
higher by an increased 56.3%, the highest since 2007. A much-reduced
12.2% expected rates to fall. An increased 35.0% of respondents
expected stock prices to rise. That was near the recent high.
A reduced 2.0% of those surveyed plan to buy a home during the
next six months. An improved 27.4% plan to buy a major appliance,
though 30.9% planned to buy one back in 2007. An improved 5.1% plan to
buy an automobile versus 6.0% in 2007 and a greater 2.3% plan to buy a
new one, just off the series' historic low.

<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427j.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427k.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Conference
Board&nbsp;(SA, 1985=100)</th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2009</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer
Confidence Index</td>
<td>57.9</td>
<td>52.3</td>
<td>46.4</td>
<td>41.9</td>
<td>45.2</td>
<td>57.9</td>
<td>103.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Present Situation</td>
<td>28.6</td>
<td>25.2</td>
<td>21.7</td>
<td>12.2</td>
<td>24.0</td>
<td>69.9</td>
<td>128.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Expectations</td>
<td>77.4</td>
<td>70.4</td>
<td>62.9</td>
<td>51.8</td>
<td>59.3</td>
<td>50.0</td>
<td>86.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Improvement in consumers' mood continued this month according to the Conference Board. Their consumer confidence index rose 10.7% m/m to 57.9, its highest level since September 2008. The gain handily outpaced the Consensus expectation [...]

U.S. Consumer Confidence Improves Further

<!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 alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427e.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427f.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">

April has been a firm month for energy prices and a gallon of regular
gasoline averaged its highest price since October 2008. Last
week, it remained near the prior week's high of $2.85 which was up by
77% since the December, 2008 low. Yesterday, the spot market price for
a gallon of regular gasoline held onto its level late last week. The
figures are reported by the U.S. Department of Energy and can be found
in Haver's WEEKLY &amp; DAILY databases.
Crude oil costs slipped last week but an upward trend has been
behind the rise in gasoline prices. The price for a barrel of light
sweet crude (WTI) again fell slightly last week to $83.04 but for the
month averaged $84.22 versus $81.01 during March. Prices remain up by
two-and-one half times the 2008 low.
A firming of demand has helped energy prices move higher.
Weekly gasoline usage was up 1.1% last week versus one year ago and
that compares with a 3.0% decline in early-February. The demand for
residual fuel oil jumped 10.5% but distillate demand fell 4.1% y/y.
Inventories of crude oil and petroleum products rose slightly last
month but were down slightly from one year ago. That contrasts with a
strong inventory accumulation into September of last year.
U.S. natural gas prices were steady last week at $4.00 per
mmbtu (+15.8% y/y). Prices reached a high of $6.50 early in January.
Nevertheless, prices remained nearly double the September low.
The energy price data can be found in Haver's WEEKLY
database while the daily figures are in DAILY.
The gasoline demand figures are in OILWKLY.

<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427g.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427h.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a ;="" href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W4/@W4.HTM">Weekly Prices</a></th>
<th scope="col">04/26/10</th>
<th scope="col">04/19/10</th>
<th scope="col">04/12/10</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2009</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retail Regular Gasoline ($ per
Gallon, Regular)</td>
<td>2.85</td>
<td>2.86</td>
<td>2.86</td>
<td>39.0%</td>
<td>2.35</td>
<td>3.25</td>
<td>2.80</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Light Sweet Crude Oil,
WTI&nbsp; ($ per bbl.)</td>
<td>83.04</td>
<td>84.60</td>
<td>85.97</td>
<td>73.6%</td>
<td>61.39</td>
<td>100.16</td>
<td>72.25</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

April has been a firm month for energy prices and a gallon of regular gasoline averaged its highest price since October 2008. Last week, it remained near the prior week's high of $2.85 which was up by 77% since the December, 2008 low. [...]

U.S. Petroleum Prices Maintain Their Higher Level

<!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 alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427a.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
Earlier improvement in home prices continued to weaken during
February. Seasonally adjusted, the Case-Shiller Home Price Index
slipped 0.1% and continued its sideways pattern since September.
Nevertheless, the 0.7% increase versus last February compares to a
19.0% y/y rate of decline at its worst, roughly one year ago.
The narrower 10 City Composite Index rose a seasonally
adjusted 0.1% (1.5% y/y). Over the last year, prices rose 1.5% versus a
19.4% decline at its worst.
The performance of home prices continues to vary around the
country. During February, the 12-month gain in prices was strongest in
the West. Prices in Washington D.C. and Dallas rose moderately but
widespread declines were logged elsewhere.
The Case-Shiller home price series are value-weighted, i.e., a
greater index weight is assigned to more expensive homes. The
S&amp;P/Case-Shiller home price series can be found in Haver's USECON
database and the city data highlighted below is in the REGIONAL
database.
Achieving Fiscal Sustainability is the
title of this morning's speech by Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and it
can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20100427a.htm">here</a>.

<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427d.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">S&amp;P/Case-Shiller
Home Price Index (SA)</th>
<th scope="col">February m/m</th>
<th scope="col">January m/m</th>
<th scope="col">December m/m</th>
<th scope="col">Feb. y/y</th>
<th scope="col">2009</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">20 City Composite Index</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>-13.3</td>
<td>-15.7</td>
<td>-3.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8"> Regional
Indicators</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">
Atlanta</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>-11.6</td>
<td>-8.5</td>
<td>0.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">
Boston</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>-4.9</td>
<td>-5.7</td>
<td>-4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">
Chicago</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>-0.8</td>
<td>-0.7</td>
<td>-2.9</td>
<td>-14.2</td>
<td>-10.0</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">
Dallas</td>
<td>-1.4</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>-2.3</td>
<td>-3.3</td>
<td>0.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">
Denver</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-0.0</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
<td>-4.9</td>
<td>-1.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">
Los Angeles</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>5.4</td>
<td>-15.4</td>
<td>-24.2</td>
<td>-5.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">
New York</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>-4.1</td>
<td>-9.8</td>
<td>-7.4</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">
San Francisco</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>12.0</td>
<td>-18.4</td>
<td>-24.3</td>
<td>-4.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Earlier improvement in home prices continued to weaken during February. Seasonally adjusted, the Case-Shiller Home Price Index slipped 0.1% and continued its sideways pattern since September. Nevertheless, the 0.7% increase versus [...]

Case-Shiller Home Price IndexContinues Sideways Movement

<!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 alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427a.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">

Earlier improvement in home prices continued to weaken during
February. Seasonally adjusted, the Case-Shiller Home Price Index
slipped 0.1% and continued its sideways pattern since September.
Nevertheless, the 0.7% increase versus last February compares to a
19.0% y/y rate of decline at its worst, roughly one year ago.
The narrower 10 City Composite Index rose a seasonally
adjusted 0.1% (1.5% y/y). Over the last year, prices rose 1.5% versus a
19.4% decline at its worst.
The performance of home prices continues to vary around the
country. During February, the 12-month gain in prices was strongest in
the West. Prices in Washington D.C. and Dallas rose moderately but
widespread declines were logged elsewhere.
The Case-Shiller home price series are value-weighted, i.e., a
greater index weight is assigned to more expensive homes. The
S&amp;P/Case-Shiller home price series can be found in Haver's USECON
database and the city data highlighted below is in the REGIONAL
database.
Achieving Fiscal Sustainability is the
title of this morning's speech by Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and it
can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20100427a.htm">here</a>.

<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427d.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">S&amp;P/Case-Shiller
Home Price Index (SA)</th>
<th scope="col">February m/m</th>
<th scope="col">January m/m</th>
<th scope="col">December m/m</th>
<th scope="col">Feb. y/y</th>
<th scope="col">2009</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">20 City Composite Index</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>-13.3</td>
<td>-15.7</td>
<td>-3.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8"> Regional
Indicators</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">
Atlanta</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>-11.6</td>
<td>-8.5</td>
<td>0.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">
Boston</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>-4.9</td>
<td>-5.7</td>
<td>-4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">
Chicago</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>-0.8</td>
<td>-0.7</td>
<td>-2.9</td>
<td>-14.2</td>
<td>-10.0</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">
Dallas</td>
<td>-1.4</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>-2.3</td>
<td>-3.3</td>
<td>0.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">
Denver</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-0.0</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
<td>-4.9</td>
<td>-1.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">
Los Angeles</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>5.4</td>
<td>-15.4</td>
<td>-24.2</td>
<td>-5.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">
New York</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>-4.1</td>
<td>-9.8</td>
<td>-7.4</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">
San Francisco</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>12.0</td>
<td>-18.4</td>
<td>-24.3</td>
<td>-4.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Petroleum Prices Maintain
Their Higher Level 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> April 27, 2010


<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427e.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427f.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">

April has been a firm month for energy prices and a gallon of regular
gasoline averaged its highest price since October 2008. Last
week, it remained near the prior week's high of $2.85 which was up by
77% since the December, 2008 low. Yesterday, the spot market price for
a gallon of regular gasoline held onto its level late last week. The
figures are reported by the U.S. Department of Energy and can be found
in Haver's WEEKLY &amp; DAILY databases.
Crude oil costs slipped last week but an upward trend has been
behind the rise in gasoline prices. The price for a barrel of light
sweet crude (WTI) again fell slightly last week to $83.04 but for the
month averaged $84.22 versus $81.01 during March. Prices remain up by
two-and-one half times the 2008 low.
A firming of demand has helped energy prices move higher.
Weekly gasoline usage was up 1.1% last week versus one year ago and
that compares with a 3.0% decline in early-February. The demand for
residual fuel oil jumped 10.5% but distillate demand fell 4.1% y/y.
Inventories of crude oil and petroleum products rose slightly last
month but were down slightly from one year ago. That contrasts with a
strong inventory accumulation into September of last year.
U.S. natural gas prices were steady last week at $4.00 per
mmbtu (+15.8% y/y). Prices reached a high of $6.50 early in January.
Nevertheless, prices remained nearly double the September low.
The energy price data can be found in Haver's WEEKLY
database while the daily figures are in DAILY.
The gasoline demand figures are in OILWKLY.

<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427g.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427h.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a ;="" href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W4/@W4.HTM">Weekly
Prices</a></th>
<th scope="col">04/26/10</th>
<th scope="col">04/19/10</th>
<th scope="col">04/12/10</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2009</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retail Regular Gasoline ($ per
Gallon, Regular)</td>
<td>2.85</td>
<td>2.86</td>
<td>2.86</td>
<td>39.0%</td>
<td>2.35</td>
<td>3.25</td>
<td>2.80</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Light Sweet Crude Oil,
WTI&nbsp; ($ per bbl.)</td>
<td>83.04</td>
<td>84.60</td>
<td>85.97</td>
<td>73.6%</td>
<td>61.39</td>
<td>100.16</td>
<td>72.25</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Consumer Confidence Improves
Further 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller&nbsp;</a> April 27, 2010


<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427i.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
Improvement in consumers' mood continued this month according
to the Conference Board. Their consumer confidence index rose 10.7% m/m
to 57.9, its highest level since September 2008. The gain handily
outpaced the Consensus expectation for a rise to 53.5. During the last
ten years there has been an 86% correlation between the level of
consumer confidence and the y/y change in real consumer spending. The
Conference Board data can be found in Haver's CBDB
database.
Consumers' assessment of the present situation jumped 13.5%
m/m after a similar March rise, off a near-record low. Jobs were seen
as hard to get by a reduced 45.0% of respondents but jobs were seen as
plentiful by only 4.8%. That was up just slightly from the series'
historic low reached in November. Also improved was the percentage of
respondents who saw business conditions as good. The percentage of
consumers who thought business conditions were bad fell to 40.2%, off
ten points from its peak during the recession.
The expectations component of confidence also improved m/m to
its highest level just before the recession. Improved expectations for
employment led the gain but expectations for business conditions and
income rose just slightly. Expectations for the inflation rate in
twelve months slipped to 5.3% and that remained down from last year's
high of 7.7%. Interest rates in twelve months were expected to be
higher by an increased 56.3%, the highest since 2007. A much-reduced
12.2% expected rates to fall. An increased 35.0% of respondents
expected stock prices to rise. That was near the recent high.
A reduced 2.0% of those surveyed plan to buy a home during the
next six months. An improved 27.4% plan to buy a major appliance,
though 30.9% planned to buy one back in 2007. An improved 5.1% plan to
buy an automobile versus 6.0% in 2007 and a greater 2.3% plan to buy a
new one, just off the series' historic low.

<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427j.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427k.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Conference
Board&nbsp;(SA, 1985=100)</th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2009</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer
Confidence Index</td>
<td>57.9</td>
<td>52.3</td>
<td>46.4</td>
<td>41.9</td>
<td>45.2</td>
<td>57.9</td>
<td>103.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Present Situation</td>
<td>28.6</td>
<td>25.2</td>
<td>21.7</td>
<td>12.2</td>
<td>24.0</td>
<td>69.9</td>
<td>128.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Expectations</td>
<td>77.4</td>
<td>70.4</td>
<td>62.9</td>
<td>51.8</td>
<td>59.3</td>
<td>50.0</td>
<td>86.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
An Assortment Of Consumer
Confidence Indicators 
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise
Curley</a> April 27, 2010



<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427l.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">France,
Germany, Italy and Switzerland released indicators of consumer
confidence today.&nbsp; The latest data for the Swiss indicator,
the UBS Consumption Indicator, are for March.&nbsp; Those for
Italy, ISAE's consumer survey, and France, INSEE's household survey,
are for April and those for Germany, GfK's consumer climate survey,
May.
After some loss of confidence at the end of last year and
early
this year, due largely to the rise in energy prices, consumer
confidence in Switzerland, Italy and Germany has recovered as can be
seen in the first chart.&nbsp; French consumers, however, have on
balance become more negative, as shown in the second chart.&nbsp;
It should be noted that since its inception in April, 1986, that the
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100427m.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">only
time the non seasonally adjusted French measure of consumer
confidence has reported a positive balance of opinion was during the
period from July 1999 to May 2001, as seen in the second
chart.&nbsp; The average balance of opinion over the whole span is
-18.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 The measures of consumer confidence vary from
country to country.&nbsp; Balances of opinion in German and France,
an index with a base year of 1980 for Italy and a so-called index for
Switzerland.&nbsp; The Swiss indicator has no base year and is an
index in the sense that "it points to, identifies or highlights a
particular trend or condition" (Definition of index, no.3 in Chambers
21st Century Dictionary).&nbsp; One way to judge current values is
to relate them to the average of the data over its history, which is
shown in the last column of the following table.&nbsp; Consumer
confident in Germany at 3.8 in May is above its long term average of
3.3, as is Swiss consumer confidence, which in March was 1.708 compared
with its long term average of 1.501.&nbsp; In April, French
consumer confidence at -37 was well below its long term average of -18
while Italian consumer confidence of 107.7 was&nbsp; moderately
below its long term average of 112.7
(1980=100).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">May 10&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 10&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 10</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 10</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 10</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 09</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 09</th>
<th scope="col">Average*</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany: GFK
Consumer Climate % Bal</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.6</td>
<td>3.9</td>
<td>3.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France: INSEE
Household Survey</td>
<td>&nbsp;--</td>
<td>-37</td>
<td>-35</td>
<td>-34</td>
<td>-29</td>
<td>-33</td>
<td>-32</td>
<td>-18</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Italy: ISAE
Consumer Survey1980=100</td>
<td>&nbsp;--</td>
<td>107.7</td>
<td>105.3</td>
<td>107.2</td>
<td>112.1</td>
<td>111.2</td>
<td>111.2</td>
<td>112.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Switzerland: UBS
Consumption Indicator</td>
<td>&nbsp;--</td>
<td>&nbsp;--</td>
<td>1.708</td>
<td>1.201</td>
<td>1.322</td>
<td>1.201</td>
<td>1.279</td>
<td>1.501</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol" colspan="9">*Average
over the span
of available
data</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

</body></html>

Case-Shiller Home PriceIndexContinues Sideways Movement

More pronounced upward revisions in countries more exposed to AI investment

Stable job openings and hiring rates point to cautious hiring

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

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

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

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

PMIs show still-elevated but slowing US inflation

AI boosting US investment in data centers

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

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

US financial markets have gotten used to elevated policy uncertainty

FOMC now expects more rate cuts going forward than in June

China gaining ASEAN exports while US exports slump

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

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

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

Equity market exuberance outpacing macroeconomic data

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

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

Service Health

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

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Featured Data Additions

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Andrew Cates

**The growth consensus for 2026** 
Consensus growth forecasts for 2026 have continued to firm over the past six months, with upward revisions most pronounced in economies that are more directly exposed to the global AI investment cycle. Taiwan stands out, reflecting its central role in advanced semiconductor manufacturing and the spillovers from sustained AI-related capex across the global tech supply chain. The US has also seen a sizeable upgrade, consistent with strong domestic investment in AI infrastructure and data-centre capacity, alongside resilient demand for high-value tech services. Elsewhere in Asia, upgrades to South Korea and, to a lesser extent, China and India point to a broader regional benefit from the AI-driven electronics and capital-goods cycle, even as underlying macro conditions remain mixed. Canada has also seen modest upward revisions, likely reflecting its close integration with US investment trends. By contrast, revisions across much of Europe and Japan have been more muted, while forecasts for Russia remain under downward pressure.

260115Z1.jpg

**The next steps for central bank policy** 
Based on responses to the special questions in the latest Blue Chip survey, the chart highlights how uncertain panelists remain about the precise timing of the next policy move, even where there is broad agreement on direction. Expectations for both the Fed and the Bank of England are now loosely centred on March 2026 as the most likely window for the next easing step, but the spread of responses points to limited conviction and a high sensitivity to incoming data. By contrast, panelists continue to see the ECB as largely through its easing cycle, with a clear majority expecting any further move only later, if at all. The Bank of Japan remains the clear outlier: while further tightening is still the central expectation, views are split on timing, with panelists divided between a March move and a hike pushed beyond April 2026—highlighting ongoing uncertainty over the durability of domestic inflation and wage dynamics.

260115Z2.jpg

**The UK economy and BoE policy** 
While Blue Chip panelists remain divided on the precise timing of the Bank of England’s next policy cut, the latest run of UK data is tilting market expectations toward an earlier move. Economic releases have increasingly fallen short of expectations, a pattern that has coincided with a steady decline in short-dated gilt yields. The negative surprise profile reflects a combination of weak household demand and softer labour-market indicators. This has generated downside momentum in the data, reinforcing the case—at least from a market perspective—for earlier or deeper policy easing.

260115Z3.jpg

**The impact of Artificial Intelligence**
Responses to the special questions in the latest Blue Chip survey also suggest that panelists are divided over the timing of AI’s macroeconomic impact in the US. A sizeable share already reports seeing noticeable effects, consistent with the rapid pace of AI-related investment and adoption over the past year. At the same time, a similarly large group expects AI’s impact to become more evident only over the next one to three years, implying a belief that productivity and growth effects will materialise with a lag. These views are notable given that a majority of panelists continue to judge anticipated AI-related gains as being overstated in financial markets, underscoring the risk of disappointment—and potential equity market volatility—if realised outcomes fail to match elevated expectations.

260115Z4.jpg

**US business formation and productivity growth**
The chart points to a renewed pick-up in US productivity growth alongside a marked step-up in business applications, a combination that has naturally fuelled interest in the role of AI. The acceleration in output per hour over the past year coincides with a surge in corporate formations, potentially reflecting both heightened investment in new technologies and the emergence of new, AI-enabled business models. That said, productivity growth has historically been highly cyclical, often strengthening late in the cycle or during periods of labour hoarding and cost discipline, before fading again. As such, while AI may be contributing at the margin, it remains too early to conclude that the recent improvement marks a durable, technology-driven shift rather than another cyclical upswing.

260115Z5.jpg

**China’s export growth**
This week’s China trade data revealed that its export growth has continued to rotate away from the US and toward Europe and ASEAN, a pattern that has become more pronounced over the past year. While exports to the US have fallen sharply on a year-on-year basis, shipments to both Europe and ASEAN have held up markedly better, and in recent months have returned to positive growth. This divergence is consistent with the tightening of US trade policy toward China, including higher tariffs, expanded export controls and broader efforts to “de-risk” supply chains. By contrast, trade with Europe and ASEAN appears to be benefiting from trade diversion and re-routing, as Chinese firms redirect exports toward markets where barriers remain lower and supply-chain integration is deeper.

260115Z6.jpg

The global backdrop remains unsettled, reflected in rising gold prices amid geopolitical tensions—most recently around Venezuela—and renewed political noise, including questions over Federal Reserve independence. At the same time, however, many major equity indices remain at or close to all-time highs, buoyed by optimism around AI and reinforced by a run of relatively benign US inflation readings. Against this mixed backdrop, the charts this week point to a global outlook that is becoming more differentiated rather than uniformly weaker. Blue Chip forecasts for 2026 growth have edged higher over the past six months, with upgrades concentrated in economies most exposed to the AI investment cycle, notably the US and parts of Asia (chart 1). Central bank expectations remain fluid: while panelists broadly anticipate easing by the Fed and Bank of England, conviction around timing is limited, and the Bank of Japan remains an outlier with further tightening still expected (chart 2). In the UK, that uncertainty sits alongside a deteriorating data flow, with negative economic surprises increasingly tilting market expectations toward an earlier BoE rate cut (chart 3). Turning to the US, special questions highlight a divide over whether AI is already having a noticeable macro impact or whether its effects will emerge more gradually, a tension that mirrors concerns about over-optimism in financial markets (chart4). That debate is echoed in the recent pick-up in US productivity growth and the step-change in business formation—developments that may reflect AI-related dynamics but which also warrant caution given the historically cyclical nature of productivity (chart 5). Finally, China’s trade data point to a continued re-orientation of export growth away from the US and toward Europe and ASEAN, consistent with evolving US trade policy and broader supply-chain realignment (chart 6).

<iframe data-testid="embed-iframe" style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/2mhM227WWeJJ6kRv7sJMiE?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: Between Optimism and Uncertainty

Sandy Batten

260115N2.jpg

260115O2.jpg

The Current Activity Diffusion Index from the latest Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey (MBOS) conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia rose to 12.6 in January from -8.8 in December. The survey covers the third Federal Reserve District. A reading of -4.5 for January was expected by the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Over 23% of respondents reported increases in activity in January (up from 21% last month), exceeding the 11% reporting decreases (down from 30%); 63% of the firms reported no change in current activity (up from 50%). Survey responses were collected from January 5 to January 12.

The headline index is the answer to just one question: whether activity increased, decreased or was unchanged from the previous month. Haver Analytics calculates an ISM-adjusted current activity diffusion index from the five key components using the methodology employed to construct the national ISM index. This figure rose to 52.9 in January from 52.5 in December, inching further above the critical 50 value that separates contraction from expansion.

For the component indexes, the new orders index rose to 14.4 from 5.7 in December. The percentage of respondents reporting an increase in orders edged up to 28.3% in January from 27.4% in the prior month while 13.9% reported a decrease, down markedly from 21.7% in December. The shipments index increased to 9.5 in January from 3.2 in December. The percentage of respondents reporting an increase in shipments rose slightly to 27.3% from 26.2% while the percentage reporting a decrease fell to 17.8% from 23.0%. Delivery times lengthened marginally to 7.3 in January from 5.2 in December. The inventories index fell 17 points to -8.4 in January, its lowest level since July 2024.

Respondents continued to report overall increases in employment with the employment index remaining in positive territory. However, the index fell to 9.7 in January from 13.0 in December, indicating that gains in employment slowed in the latest month. The percentage of respondents reporting an increase in employment rose to 19.8% from 13.6% in December but the percentage reporting a decline jumped to 10.1% in January from 0.6% in December. The average workweek index fell from 12.5 in December to 9.1 in January.

On balance, the firms continued to report overall increases in prices. The prices paid index edged down 2 points to 46.9 in January, its second consecutive decrease and its lowest level since June. Nearly 47% of respondents reported increases in input prices, while none reported decreases; 53% reported no change. The current prices received index ticked up 2 points to 27.8. More than 31% of respondents reported increases in the prices of their own goods, 3% reported decreases, and 66% reported no change.

The diffusion index for future general activity declined from a revised reading of 38.1 in December to 25.5 in January, its lowest reading since July. Nearly 35% of respondents expect an increase in activity over the next six months (down from 53% last month), exceeding the 9% that expect a decrease. The future new orders index fell 6 points to 32.9, while the future shipments index ticked up 1 point to 40.8. On balance, the firms continue to expect increases in employment over the next six months with the future employment index rising 4 points to 28.8. Both future price indexes were well above their long-run averages: The future prices paid index rose 2 points to 66.6; the future prices received index moved up 5 points to 61.8. The index for future capital expenditures edged up 1 point to 30.3.

The Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey (MBOS), conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, is a monthly survey of manufacturers in the Third Federal Reserve District. Participants indicate the direction of change in overall business activity and in the various measures of activity at their plants. The diffusion indexes in the MBOS represent the percentage of respondents indicating an increase minus the percentage indicating a decrease. The indexes range from -100 to +100 with positive values indicating an increase in activity. The series from the survey dating back to May 1968 can be found in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database. The expectations forecast figures are from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in **AS1REPNA**.

260115P2.jpg

260115Q2.jpg

- The headline index increased to 12.6 in January, the highest reading since September, from -8.8 in December.
- Both new orders and shipments increased in January.
- Delivery times lengthened while the pace of input price increases slowed.
- Employment decreased but remained in positive territory, indicating further gains in employment though at a slower pace.

Philly Fed Manufacturing Activity Rebounds in January

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

260115A5.jpg

260115B5.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance declined by 9,000 to 198,000 in the week ending January 10, from 207,000 in the week ending January 3, revised from 208,000. The four-week moving average of initial claims was 205,000 in the January 10 week, a decline of 6,500 from 211,500 in the January 3 week, revised from 211,750, and reaching is the lowest level for this average since January 20, 2024, when it was 203,250.

Federal government employees initially filed 646 (NSA) jobless insurance claims in the week ended January 3, after filing 476 claims in the week ended December 27.

The total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries – also known as “continuing claims” –decreased by 19,000 to 1.884 million in the week ended January 3 from 1.903 million in the December 27 week, revised from 1.914 million. The four-week moving average was 1.889 million in the week ending January 3, a decrease of 250 from the prior week, revised from 1.893 million. The insured unemployment rate stood at 1.2% in the week of January 3, unchanged from previous 5 weeks.

Federal government employees’ continuing benefits claims were 12,803 (NSA) in the week of December 27, 12,161 (NSA) from 12,129 (NSA) in the week of December 20. 

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ending December 27, the highest unemployment rates were in Rhode Island (2.86%), New Jersey (2.85%), Washington (2.81%), Minnesota (2.74%), Massachusetts (2.59%), Oregon (2.28%), Montana (2.16%), California and Connecticut (both 2.12%) and Alaska (2.06%). The lowest rates were in Florida (0.31%), North Carolina (0.41%), Louisiana (0.43%), Alabama and Virginia (both 0.49%). Rates in other notable states include Illinois (2.18%), New York (2.10%), Pennsylvania (2.02%), and Texas (1.20%). These state data are not seasonally adjusted.

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

260115C5.jpg

260115D5.jpg

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

U.S. Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance Declined in Latest Week

260114J8.jpg

260114K8.jpg

Existing home sales jumped 5.1% m/m (+1.4% y/y) in December to 4.35 million units (SAAR). This was the fourth consecutive monthly gain and was well above the 1.7% m/m increase expected by the Action Economics Forecast Survey. December sales were the highest since February 2023. For all of 2025, sales remained anemic, totaling just 4.084 million and only up slightly from 4.067 million in 2024, which was the lowest annual total in the history of the series dating back to 1999. The average effective 30-year mortgage interest rate fell to 6.51% in December from 6.54% in November. This is down markedly from 7.10% in May and accounts for some of the revival in home sales over the past several months. The sales figures are based on closings of sales contracts signed over the past couple of months.

Existing single-family home sales rose 5.1% m/m (+1.8% y/y) in December to 3.95 million. This was the fourth consecutive monthly increase and highest level of single-family sales since February 2023. Sales of condos and co-ops surged 5.3% m/m (-2.4% y/y) in December to 400,000, more than reversing a 2.6% monthly drop in November. For all of 2025, sales of single-family homes edged up to 3.706 million from 3.673 million in 2024. By contrast, sales of condos and co-ops declined to 378,333 from 393,333 in 2024.

Compared to a month ago, sales rose 2.0% m/m in the Northeast, increased 2.0% m/m in the Midwest, jumped 6.9% m/m in the South (the largest monthly gain since February 2024), and surged 6.6% m/m in the West (the largest monthly gains since February). Year-over-year comparisons were less flattering. Compared to a year ago, sales were unchanged in both the Midwest and the West and fell 1.9% y/y in the Northeast. By contrast, sales rose 3.6% y/y in the South.

The median price of all existing homes (NSA) declined 1.1% m/m (+0.4% y/y) to $405,400 in December. The median price of an existing single-family home fell 1.3% m/m (+0.2% y/y) to $409,500 in December. Prices of single-family homes in the Northeast were essentially unchanged in December from November. However, prices in the other three regions fell: -3.6% m/m in the Midwest, -0.3% m/m in the South, -1.9% m/m in the West.

Inventories of homes for sale continued to weaken in December. The number of existing homes for sale (NSA) plummeted 18.1% m/m (+3.5% y/y) to 1.18 million units, the lowest level since January. The supply of homes on the market at the current selling rate (NSA) fell to 3.3 months, its lowest reading since last December.

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.

260114L8.jpg

260114M8.jpg

- Existing home sales jumped a much larger-than-expected 5.1% m/m in December, the fourth consecutive monthly gain.
- Month-over-month sales increased in each of the four major areas.
- But year-over-year sales rose only in the South.
- For all of 2025, sales totaled 4.084 million, up slightly from 4.067 million in 2024.

U.S. Existing Home Sales Jumped 5.1% in December

Michael J. Moran

260114J.jpg

260114K.jpg

The Bureau of Labor Statistics did not publish a report on producer prices for October because of the government shutdown, but it was able to collect sufficient data retroactively to construct all the usual statistics. Those results were included in the November report, which was published on January 14.

The producer price index for final demand rose 0.2% In November after an increase of 0.1 percent in October. These modest changes followed firmer increases in the prior three months (0.4% on average), leaving little change in the year-over-year increase. The Producer Price Index can fluctuate sharply from month-to-month, but the ups and downs recently have traced a sideways trend, with inflation remaining in a range of approximately 2.0% to 4.0% since early 2024. Inflation in the past several months has been in the middle of that range.

The goods and service components of final demand both posted annual inflation near 3.0% in November (goods at 3.2% and services at 2.9%), but they were moving along different trajectories. Good inflation was drifting upward, while service inflation was easing slightly. Casual observation suggests that tariffs might be playing a role in the pickup in goods inflation. Tariffs could be leading to higher prices of inputs for domestic producers, which might be passed on to final prices. The year-over-year increase in final goods inflation totaled only 0.4% in April, when President Trump announced draconian tariffs, but it has since climbed to 3.2%.

The final demand PPI, in addition to goods and service components, also has a construction component, although it has a small weight in the overall index (2.6%). This component was unchanged in November after an increase of 1.6% in October; the year-over-year change totaled 2.7%. The BLS claims that monthly changes in the construction component are seasonally adjusted, but the published figures seem to have residual seasonality. Specifically, the first month of many quarters often shows an outsized change. In the chart below, the spikes upward and downward are nearly always in the first month of a quarter.

In addition to final demand measures, the Bureau of Labor Statistics also publishes price indexes for intermediate goods and services produced by US firms. The intermediate service measure had been showing a downward drift in inflation, although it has taken a slight turn upward in recent months. Among producers of processed goods, inflation at the intermediate level has taken a sharp turn since mid-2024, moving from deflation to essentially no inflation one year later. Inflation remained close to zero for a time, but a renewed upward trend began in the spring of last year (after April – one wonders about the effect of tariffs).

The BLS publishes an index for unprocessed goods at the intermediate level, but this measure is wild. Month-to-month changes are often pronounced, and the year-over-year change swings sharply as well. Since mid-2024, year-over-year inflation has ranged from -32.1% to 9.3%.

The PPI data are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. Further detail is contained in **PPI** and **PPIR**. The expectations figures are available in the **AS1REPNA** database.

260114L.jpg

260114M.jpg

- Offsetting drifts in final demand for goods and services leave inflation steady at 3%.
- Inflation quickens for producers of intermediate goods and services.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

Chicago Fed Index Improves Modestly

Chicago Fed Index Improves Modestly

Japan’s Retail Sales Are On The Road To Recovery

An Assortment Of Consumer Confidence Indicators

U.S. Consumer Confidence Improves Further

U.S. Petroleum Prices Maintain Their Higher Level

Case-Shiller Home Price IndexContinues Sideways Movement

Case-Shiller Home PriceIndexContinues Sideways Movement