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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100408d.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>Earlier improvement in the labor market paused last week,
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Initial claims for jobless
insurance rose 18,000 to 460,000, the highest level in five weeks. The
increase followed a 3,000 decline during the prior week which was half
that reported initially. Nevertheless, the latest level is down from
the recession peak of 651,000 reached in March of 2009. Last week's
level exceeded Consensus expectations for 435,000 new claims but the
four-week moving average of initial claims rose just slightly to
450,250.</p>
<p>Continuing claims for unemployment insurance during the latest
week fell to a new cycle low and are down by one-third since the
late-June 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 4.648 mil. This series dates back to 1966.</p>
<p>Extended benefits for unemployment insurance rose by
more-than-one half w/w to 214,393. Nevertheless, they were down by
two-thirds from a peak of 597,688 reached in November.Each state
administers a separate unemployment insurance program within guidelines
established by Federal law. Benefit amounts and the length of time
benefits are received are determined by state law. For example, in
Michigan and New York, an additional 73 weeks of benefits are available
while in California an additional 79 weeks are available.</p>
<p>The insured unemployment rate slipped to 3.5% after five weeks
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.</p>
<p>The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending
March 19 were in Alaska (7.1% percent), Oregon (6.0), Wisconsin (5.7),
Pennsylvania (5.4), Michigan (5.4), Nevada (5.3), North Carolina (5.0)
and Connecticut (5.0). The lowest insured unemployment rates were in
Virginia (2.0), Texas (2.3), Georgia (3.0), Florida (3.2), Wyoming
(3.4), Maryland (3.4), Ohio (3.5), New York (3.9) and Maine (4.2).
These data are not seasonally adjusted but the overall insured
unemployment rate is.</p>
<p>The unemployment insurance claims data is available in Haver's
<b>WEEKLY</b> database and the state data is in the <b>REGIONW</b>
database.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100408e.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100408f.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"><b><a ;="" href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>04/02/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>03/26/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>03/19/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>460</td>
<td>442</td>
<td>445</td>
<td>-28.5%</td>
<td>572</td>
<td>419</td>
<td>321</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>4,550</td>
<td>4,681</td>
<td>-22.1%</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>3.5</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>
</body></html>

Earlier improvement in the labor market paused last week, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Initial claims for jobless insurance rose 18,000 to 460,000, the highest level in five weeks. The increase followed a 3,000 decline [...]

U.S. Initial Unemployment Insurance Claims Increase

<!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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100408a.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 363px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>Consumer borrowing continued its retrenchment during February.
Consumer credit outstanding fell $11.5B, reversing a revised $10.6B
January increase which was much larger than reported last month. The
Federal Reserve reported late-Wednesday that the resultant 4.0% y/y
decline in credit outstanding remained near the record. During the last
ten years, there has been a 60% correlation between the y/y change in
credit outstanding and the change in personal consumption expenditures.</p>
<p>Usage of revolving credit was cut sharply. The $9.5B drop
followed a modest January increase and left usage down a near-record
9.1% y/y. Versus February 2009, finance companies lowered lending by
14.3%, commercial bank lending fell 12.7%, pools of securitized assets
fell 7.4%. Loans from credit unions offset some of these declines with
a 6.5% increase while savings institution raised lending 1.6%.</p>
<p>Increased usage of non-revolving credit (autos &amp; other
consumer durables), which accounts for nearly two-thirds of the total,
fell a moderate $2.0B following a sharp $9.1B January gain. The 1.1%
y/y decline is clearly modest relative to the cutback in revolving
credit and it has been stable at that rate since the middle of last
year. Federal government &amp; Sallie Mae lending expanded by
nearly three-quarters y/y during February. That increase offset a 14.5%
decline in pools of securitized assets, a 13.7% fall in savings
institutions, an 11.8% decline in finance companies, a 2.8% fall in
credit union lending and a 0.1% downtick in commercial bank lending.</p>
<p>These figures are the major input to the Fed's quarterly Flow
of Funds accounts for the household sector.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100408b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100408c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b>Consumer
Credit Outstanding (m/m Chg, SAAR)</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>February</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>December</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>$-11.5B</td>
<td>$10.6B</td>
<td>$-7.5B</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td>-4.4%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Revolving</td>
<td>$-9.5B</td>
<td>$1.5B</td>
<td>$-9.4B</td>
<td>-9.1%</td>
<td>-9.6%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>8.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non-revolving</td>
<td>$-2.0B</td>
<td>$9.1B</td>
<td>$1.9B</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Consumer borrowing continued its retrenchment during February. Consumer credit outstanding fell $11.5B, reversing a revised $10.6B January increase which was much larger than reported last month. The Federal Reserve reported late- [...]

U.S. Consumer Credit Decline Reverses Earlier Gain

<!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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100408a.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 363px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>Consumer borrowing continued its retrenchment during February.
Consumer credit outstanding fell $11.5B, reversing a revised $10.6B
January increase which was much larger than reported last month. The
Federal Reserve reported late-Wednesday that the resultant 4.0% y/y
decline in credit outstanding remained near the record. During the last
ten years, there has been a 60% correlation between the y/y change in
credit outstanding and the change in personal consumption expenditures.</p>
<p>Usage of revolving credit was cut sharply. The $9.5B drop
followed a modest January increase and left usage down a near-record
9.1% y/y. Versus February 2009, finance companies lowered lending by
14.3%, commercial bank lending fell 12.7%, pools of securitized assets
fell 7.4%. Loans from credit unions offset some of these declines with
a 6.5% increase while savings institution raised lending 1.6%.</p>
<p>Increased usage of non-revolving credit (autos &amp; other
consumer durables), which accounts for nearly two-thirds of the total,
fell a moderate $2.0B following a sharp $9.1B January gain. The 1.1%
y/y decline is clearly modest relative to the cutback in revolving
credit and it has been stable at that rate since the middle of last
year. Federal government &amp; Sallie Mae lending expanded by
nearly three-quarters y/y during February. That increase offset a 14.5%
decline in pools of securitized assets, a 13.7% fall in savings
institutions, an 11.8% decline in finance companies, a 2.8% fall in
credit union lending and a 0.1% downtick in commercial bank lending.</p>
<p>These figures are the major input to the Fed's quarterly Flow
of Funds accounts for the household sector.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100408b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100408c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b>Consumer
Credit Outstanding (m/m Chg, SAAR)</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>February</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>December</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>$-11.5B</td>
<td>$10.6B</td>
<td>$-7.5B</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td>-4.4%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Revolving</td>
<td>$-9.5B</td>
<td>$1.5B</td>
<td>$-9.4B</td>
<td>-9.1%</td>
<td>-9.6%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>8.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non-revolving</td>
<td>$-2.0B</td>
<td>$9.1B</td>
<td>$1.9B</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<span id="articletitle">U.S. Initial Unemployment
Insurance Claims Increase </span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> April 8, 2010</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100408d.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>Earlier improvement in the labor market paused last week,
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Initial claims for jobless
insurance rose 18,000 to 460,000, the highest level in five weeks. The
increase followed a 3,000 decline during the prior week which was half
that reported initially. Nevertheless, the latest level is down from
the recession peak of 651,000 reached in March of 2009. Last week's
level exceeded Consensus expectations for 435,000 new claims but the
four-week moving average of initial claims rose just slightly to
450,250.</p>
<p>Continuing claims for unemployment insurance during the latest
week fell to a new cycle low and are down by one-third since the
late-June 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 4.648 mil. This series dates back to 1966.</p>
<p>Extended benefits for unemployment insurance rose by
more-than-one half w/w to 214,393. Nevertheless, they were down by
two-thirds from a peak of 597,688 reached in November.Each state
administers a separate unemployment insurance program within guidelines
established by Federal law. Benefit amounts and the length of time
benefits are received are determined by state law. For example, in
Michigan and New York, an additional 73 weeks of benefits are available
while in California an additional 79 weeks are available.</p>
<p>The insured unemployment rate slipped to 3.5% after five weeks
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.</p>
<p>The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending
March 19 were in Alaska (7.1% percent), Oregon (6.0), Wisconsin (5.7),
Pennsylvania (5.4), Michigan (5.4), Nevada (5.3), North Carolina (5.0)
and Connecticut (5.0). The lowest insured unemployment rates were in
Virginia (2.0), Texas (2.3), Georgia (3.0), Florida (3.2), Wyoming
(3.4), Maryland (3.4), Ohio (3.5), New York (3.9) and Maine (4.2).
These data are not seasonally adjusted but the overall insured
unemployment rate is.</p>
<p>The unemployment insurance claims data is available in Haver's
<b>WEEKLY</b> database and the state data is in the <b>REGIONW</b>
database.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100408e.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100408f.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"><b><a ;="" href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment
Insurance (000s)</a></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>04/02/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>03/26/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>03/19/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>460</td>
<td>442</td>
<td>445</td>
<td>-28.5%</td>
<td>572</td>
<td>419</td>
<td>321</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>4,550</td>
<td>4,681</td>
<td>-22.1%</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>3.5</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>
<span id="articletitle">Euro-Consumer Remains Sluggish</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> April 8, 2010</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100408g.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>The Euro consumer is not helping to lead growth to the
Promised Land. Retail sales came up lame in February after rising by
just the thinnest margin of 0.1% in January. The growth rate for retail
sales is steady over 3-and 6-months at under 1.5% in nominal terms. The
lift from auto sales is going, going gone as purchase incentive plans
have ended and the bulge in vehicle registrations is unwinding fast.
Retail sales in Germany, the big EMU economy, are off for two months in
a row. There is no leadership there.</p>
<p>Greece&#8217;s problems continue to worsen and to hang over growth
prospects for the Zone. No one is sure just what will happen, but
speculation is rife and that makes things worse. The German hard line
on Greece that delivers election protection to Angelina Merkel can&#8217;t
make the Zone look like a very attractive place to be. The cry we heard
in the past, &#8217;we are all Europeans now,&#8217; rings hollow. They are all
Europeans until a crisis hits then they are German, French, Greek and
etc. For now Greek bonds are suffering their widest spreads to bunds
since EMU was formed; credit default protection is getting to be very
expensive for Greek paper. A few market pundits push for Greece to
default but for the most part that is a fringe faction. Most realize
the potential dangers from such an event and the risk of knock-on
effects from having Greece actually default. Just think of the US and
what happened when Lehman Brothers failed. It is often hard to predict
the fallout from such events; German banks already hold a lot of Greek
bonds on their balance sheets.</p>
<p>Meanwhile the Germans are being tough on Greece. One must
wonder if Greece at some point does not simply succumb to the pressure
and call the German bluff and let the forces of default begin to run
their course, forcing Germany to either to deal with the fallout of
default or to back Greece more solidly. In the meantime the Greek
tragedy plays out as one of Europe&#8217;s longest running sold-out
performances. Uncertainty about Greece continues to adversely impact
growth in the Zone.</p>
<p>The main bright news for Europe has come from the UK where
industrial output has risen strongly (compared to flat output in
Germany this month) and rising home prices. The Bank of England is
continuing to given the markets there assistance with securities
purchases. Still growth in the UK is less than stellar, that&#8217;s why the
BOE is still providing market support after all.</p>
<p>The US recovery is looking better&#8230; then bleaker. While the
data clearly have improved, the jobless claims report from the current
week has shot up to a five-week high making it clear that jobs growth
is mounting no head of steam in the wake of the March jobs report. It&#8217;s
time to go back to playing fantasy baseball, not fantasy recovery. The
Fed Chairman is making it clear that job growth is not significantly in
gear, dashing the value of any analysis that was arguing that the Fed
is on the brink of a rate hike after one lukewarm job report.</p>
<p>Clearly the global economy is still sputtering. While the US
expansion seems to be the strongest that is in train; it continues to
be unable to get the various jobs metrics on the right path together
with any speed. Consumers remain the key to the global recovery since
there are many nations with the ability to supply goods. Germany and
China and Japan are exporting again. The US is exporting, too. But
exports need consumers, and consumers are holding back, especially in
Europe. Investment demand is not enough by itself to drive the kind of
recovery that the world needs.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="7" scope="col"><b>Euro-Area
Retail
Sales</b>
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="3">M/M</td>
<td colspan="3">Saar</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Feb-10</td>
<td>Jan-10</td>
<td>Dec-09</td>
<td>3-Mo</td>
<td>6-MO</td>
<td>12-Mo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Zone Total Value</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Food,Bev Tobacco</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">Registrations:</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Motor Vehicle Reg</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>-5.0%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">NonFood
Country detail:
Volume</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany Value</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">UK(EU) Volume</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-4.5%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

U.S. Consumer Credit DeclineReverses Earlier Gain

<!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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100407e.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported yesterday that the
rate of improvement in job market conditions eased in February. The
latest Job Openings &amp; Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) indicated
that the <b>job openings rate </b>slipped to 2.1% from an
upwardly revised 2.2% in January. Nevertheless the rate was near the
highest in roughly one year. <i>The job openings rate is the
number of job openings on the last business day of the month as a
percent of total employment plus job openings. </i>Job
availability fell 4.6% and retraced nearly half of its upwardly revised
January increase. It remained off 3.8% year-to-year. Last year job
availability fell 17.8% following a 29.7% decline during 2008. The
series dates back to December 2000.</p>
<p>The government sector led the latest decline in the job
openings rate. It fell to the lowest level since November after several
months of improvement. A slip in the private sector rate reflected
fewer professional, education &amp; health services jobs but
factory and retail jobs grew strongly.</p>
<p>The <b>hires rate</b> has been stable near 3.1%
since the end of 2008.<i>The hires rate is the number of hires
during the month divided by employment.</i>The actual number of
hires reversed all of the January increase (-3.3% y/y) but the rate of
decline has moderated substantially since the recession.</p>
<p>The <b>job separations rate </b>eased to a new
series' low of 3.1% with the actual number of separations off 18.7%
year-to-year. The layoff rate alone fell to a nineteen-month low of
1.4%. <i>Separations include quits, layoffs, discharges, and
other separations as well as retirements. </i>The layoff rate
alone fell to 1.4% from 2.0% twelve months earlier.</p>
<p>The JOLTS survey dates only to December 2000 but has followed
the movement in nonfarm payrolls, though the actual correlation between
the two series is low.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100407f.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100407g.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"><b><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EB/@EB14/@EB14.HTM">JOLTS (Job Openings &amp; Labor
&nbsp;Turnover Survey)</a></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>February</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>December</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Feb. '09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol"><b>Job
Openings, Total</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rate (%)</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>3.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Total (000s)</td>
<td>2,723</td>
<td>2,854</td>
<td>2,531</td>
<td>2,830</td>
<td>2,531</td>
<td>3,078</td>
<td>4,378</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="8"><b>Hires, Total</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rate (%)</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>37.3</td>
<td>41.1</td>
<td>45.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Total (000s)</td>
<td>3,961</td>
<td>4,087</td>
<td>3,997</td>
<td>4,095</td>
<td>48,649</td>
<td>56,082</td>
<td>63,234</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol"><b>Layoffs
&amp;
Discharges, Total</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rate (%)</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>20.7</td>
<td>17.7</td>
<td>16.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Total (000s)</td>
<td>1,822</td>
<td>1,953</td>
<td>2,049</td>
<td>2,593</td>
<td>27,683</td>
<td>24,589</td>
<td>22,606</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported yesterday that the rate of improvement in job market conditions eased in February. The latest Job Openings & Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) indicated that the job openings rate slipped to 2.1% [...]

JOLTS: U.S. Job Openings Slip

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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100407d.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>German orders were flat in February as they held the 5.1% m/m
gain from the month before. Foreign orders built on a 3.7% gain in
January by rising an additional 1.8% m/m as domestic orders gave back
1.9 percentage points of their 6.7 percentage point spurt in January.
Over three months foreign orders are rising at an 11.8% pace while
domestic orders are right behind at a 9.7% pace. Overall orders are up
by 24.5% Yr/Yr, they are lower over six months, but are back strong on
the three-month horizon.</p>
<p>In the quarter to date German orders are showing a strong lift
rising at a 24.1% annual rate, with nearly identical foreign and
domestic order rates of growth. Sales of consumer durables and capital
goods are advancing the fastest in Germany in the quarter.</p>
<p>The orders news in Germany for February is good buffer to the
revised Q4 e-Zone GDP growth rate which has been cut to show zero
growth. But, looking ahead, the OECD now expects G-7 growth to slow
although growth in the US is expected to lead the pack. Europe is
having a hard time getting growth lined up. Its broader social safety
net put a quicker bottom on the decline in GDP in the Zone during the
downturn, but the enlarged public sector deficits and fiscal problems
throughout the e-Zone put any further fiscal help off limits. Europe&#8217;s
more stifled job market means that private sector jobs will not
comeback quickly leaving its hope for stronger growth in the hands of
the export sector.</p>
<p>German orders data are encouraging from that standpoint.
Germany seems to making its export-led progress and the domestic sector
appears to be in tow. The Service sector is coming along in Europe as
well. That is important because that will be the sector of job creation
that will sustain recovery.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="9" scope="col"> <b>German
Orders and Sales By Sector and Origin</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">Real and SA</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">% M/M</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="4">% Saar</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">&nbsp;QTR <br>
to Date</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Feb-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Jan-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Dec-09</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">3-MO</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">6-Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">12-Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">YrAgo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Orders</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>-2.4%</td>
<td>10.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">5.1%</td>
<td>24.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-36.2%</td>
<td>24.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Foreign</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>-2.5%</td>
<td>11.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">5.7%</td>
<td>30.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-40.7%</td>
<td>23.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Domestic</td>
<td>-1.9%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
<td>9.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">4.8%</td>
<td>18.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-30.6%</td>
<td>24.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;" class="odd">
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol">Real
Sector Sales</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">MFG/Mining</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.2%</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-24.1%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Consumer</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-14.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-7.6%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
<td>-11.7%</td>
<td>-12.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Cons
Durables</td>
<td>-2.5%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.3%</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-22.2%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Cons
Non-Durable</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-5.0%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-16.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-8.5%</td>
<td>-2.4%</td>
<td>-9.8%</td>
<td>-15.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Captial Gds</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>9.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">4.6%</td>
<td>10.9%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-29.9%</td>
<td>11.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Gds</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>-2.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.6%</td>
<td>12.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-24.3%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">All MFG-Sales</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.2%</td>
<td>8.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-24.3%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

German orders were flat in February as they held the 5.1% m/m gain from the month before. Foreign orders built on a 3.7% gain in January by rising an additional 1.8% m/m as domestic orders gave back 1.9 percentage points of their 6.7 [...]

German Orders Hold Gains

<!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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100405g.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>So far only the UK is showing a sharp shift in its rate of
money growth. But the e-Zone is showing a small money growth revival.
US money growth has been dropping very rapidly but is showing a hint of
stability- still its sequential rates of growth continue to ramp down.
Japan&#8217;s money growth that has so very steady has taken a step lower.
But Japan&#8217;s Tankan report suggests that the economy there is getting
better and that the downturn in money growth may not be signaling a new
round of weakness. In truth central banks have not taken their cues
from money growth for some time. Is that about to change?</p>
<p>EMU, the US and the UK have seen the biggest winding down in
money growth rates from their cycle peaks. The UK has seen that
wind-down give way to a bounce. The US shows a hint of some
stabilization in money growth but real balances are contacting over the
most recent three-months. EMU shows only a slowing in the pace of money
supply deceleration in its Yr/Yr trends but real balances over
three-months have posted positive growth. . In the Zone Credit to
residents and loans continue to contract in real terms but they are
slowing their pace of contraction, too.</p>
<p>Money growth rates seem to be showing signs - or at least
hints -of stabilization. In the US the jobs figures for March hint that
the period of job contraction may have some to a close. In Japan the
tankan report was better than expected. EMU and the UK continue to blow
and hot and cold reports back and forth. Europe still seems to be
having a tough time posting consistent growth numbers. EMU, in
particular is dealing with PR issues and the reality of very divergent
circumstances across member countries, challenging the ECB. The UK
continues to get battered with some seasonably extreme weather but also
to continue to issue a very uneven stream of economic reports.</p>
<p>In the wake of the US jobs report the entire global picture is
looking better. Commodity prices tell a story of new confidence in
growth prospects. Money supply trends do not wave any cautionary flags
about building inflation, however. The UK has persistently high money
growth and is also experiencing an inflation overshoot. The Bank of
England has said it will let it run its course since it views the
overshoot as being not problematical. In the US, with job growth coming
on stream, &#8216;inflationists&#8217; are sounding warning signals. In Europe
recent German inflation reports have been boosted by rising oil prices,
this will make the ECB wary regardless of other zone issues. Bond
yields are moving up.</p>
<p>It is true that there is a shifting of trends and of risks but
it is really even more subtle than what it seems. There remains a great
deal of slack in the global economy. In the US alone the recession
displaced eight and one-half million people (net!). Putting 162,000
back to work in one month can&#8217;t ramp up much of an inflation risk can
it? I suspect that fears of inflation are overdone and commodity prices
which are reacting to something else (call it perceived scarcity) are
acting as a misaligned lighting rod for inflation fears.</p>
<p>We do think this cycle is entering a different, better, growth
phase globally, but we do not think inflation is much of a threat. We
think this confusion will however drive prices and bond yields quite
possibly too far ahead whatever risks may emerge.</p>
<a href="http://www.haver.com/COMMENT/archive.htm">
</a>
<p></p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8" scope="col"><b>Look at
Global and Euro Liquidity Trends</b> </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">Saar-all</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">Euro Measures (E13):
Money &amp; Credit</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">G-10 Major Markets:
Money</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Memo</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">&#8364;-Supply M2</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Credit:Resid</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Loans</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">$US M2</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">&#163;UK M4</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">&#165;Jpn M2+Cds</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">OIL:WTI</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">3-MO</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>33.8%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-10.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">6-MO</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.1%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>21.1%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>14.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">12-MO</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.8%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>11.0%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>94.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2Yr</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>14.3%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-10.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">3Yr</td>
<td>6.9%</td>
<td>6.4%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>13.4%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Real Balances: deflated
by Own CPI. Oil deflated by US CPI</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">3-MO</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.9%</td>
<td>27.3%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-11.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">6-MO</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.5%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>16.4%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">12-MO</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.1%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>90.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2Yr</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>10.9%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-11.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">3Yr</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>10.3%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">All figures
are through February</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

So far only the UK is showing a sharp shift in its rate of money growth. But the e-Zone is showing a small money growth revival. US money growth has been dropping very rapidly but is showing a hint of stability- still its sequential [...]

Money Supply Growth Begins To Shift – Is That All?

<!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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100405d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353"></p>
<p>It appears that snow-storms in February didn't dampen home
sales as much as during the prior month. The National Association of
Realtors (NAR) reported that pending sales of existing single-family
homes recovered virtually all of the January decline with an 8.2%
increase. The recovery left home sales up nearly one-quarter from the
low in January of last year. The latest gain compares with Consensus
expectations for a slight m/m decline.</p>
<p>The m/m performance of home sales varied across the country. A
large increase in the Midwest was accompanied by smaller increases in
the Northeast and in the South while sales fell in the West.</p>
<p>These home sales figures are analogous to the new home sales
data from the Commerce Department in that they measure existing home
sales when the sales contract is signed, not at the time the sale is
closed. The series dates back to 2001 and the data is available in
Haver's <b>PREALTOR </b>database.</p>
<p><b>How Much Is That Home Really Worth? Appraisal Bias
and House-Price Uncertainty </b>from the Federal Reserve Bank of
Philadelphia can be found <a href="http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/publications/business-review/2010/q1/brq110_home-worth-appraisal-bias.pdf">here</a>.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100405e.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100405f.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"><b><a ;="" href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Pending Home Sales (2001=100)&nbsp;</a></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>February</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>December</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>97.6</td>
<td>90.2</td>
<td>97.8</td>
<td>&nbsp;&nbsp;17.3%</td>
<td>95.1</td>
<td>86.9</td>
<td>95.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Northeast</td>
<td>77.7</td>
<td>71.3</td>
<td>78.1</td>
<td>18.8</td>
<td>76.7</td>
<td>73.0</td>
<td>86.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Midwest</td>
<td>97.9</td>
<td>80.4</td>
<td>89.2</td>
<td>18.7</td>
<td>88.8</td>
<td>80.7</td>
<td>89.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; South</td>
<td>107.0</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>100.2</td>
<td>17.5</td>
<td>98.9</td>
<td>90.3</td>
<td>107.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; West</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>102.9</td>
<td>118.5</td>
<td>14.6</td>
<td>109.9</td>
<td>99.2</td>
<td>92.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

It appears that snow-storms in February didn't dampen home sales as much as during the prior month. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that pending sales of existing single-family homes recovered virtually all of the [...]

U.S. Pending Home Sales Unexpectedly Recover

<!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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100405a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353"></p>
<p>The service sector clearly is on the road to recovery. The
Institute for Supply Management's (ISM) Composite Index for the service
&amp; construction sectors rose in March to 55.4 from 53.0 in
February. It was the third consecutive monthly indication of solid
expansion and was the index's highest level since early-2006. Moreover,
the series has risen considerably from a low of 37.2 late in 2008. The
latest figure exceeded Consensus expectations for a reading of 54.0.
Since the series' inception in 1997 there has been a 65% correlation
between the level of the composite index in the nonmanufacturing sector
and the q/q change in real GDP for the services and the construction
sectors.</p>
<p>ISM surveys more than 370 purchasing managers in more than 62
industries including law firms, hospitals, government and retailers.
The nonmanufacturing survey dates back to July 1997. The figures are
available in Haver's <b>USECON </b>database.</p>
<p>The business activity index for the nonmanufacturing sector
surged m/m to 60.0 which was the highest level since early-2006. The
new orders index also rose considerably to 62.3, the highest level
since 2005. Thirty-seven percent of respondents reported higher orders
while only 14% reported them lower. Finally, the employment index rose
to nearly break-even. The latest level of 49.8 was the highest level
since April 2008 and was up sharply from the late-2008 low. Since the
series' inception in 1997 there has been an 80% correlation between the
level of the ISM nonmanufacturing employment index and the m/m change
in payroll employment in the service-producing plus the construction
industries.</p>
<p>Pricing power also improved to the strongest since September
2008 and was up sharply from the 2008 low. Thirty-two percent of
respondents reported higher prices while just 5% reported them lower.
At the worst, late in 2008, 41% reported lower prices. Since its
inception ten years ago, there has been a 73% correlation between the
price index and the q/q change in the GDP services chain price index.</p>
<p>Beginning with the January 2008 Nonmanufacturing <cite>Report
On Business</cite>&#174;, the composite index is calculated as an
indicator of the overall economic condition for the non-manufacturing
sector. It is a composite index based on the diffusion indices of four
of the indicators (business activity, new orders, employment and
supplier deliveries) with equal weights. The latest report from the ISM
can be found <a href="http://www.ism.ws/ISMReport/NonMfgROB.cfm">here</a>.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100405b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100405b.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"><b><a ;="" href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EF/@EF03/@EF03.HTM">ISM
Nonmanufacturing Survey</a></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>March</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>February</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>March '09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Composite Index</td>
<td>55.4</td>
<td>53.0</td>
<td>50.5</td>
<td>41.2</td>
<td>46.2</td>
<td>47.3</td>
<td>53.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Business
Activity</td>
<td>60.0</td>
<td>54.8</td>
<td>52.2</td>
<td>44.5</td>
<td>48.0</td>
<td>47.4</td>
<td>56.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; New Orders</td>
<td>62.3</td>
<td>55.0</td>
<td>54.7</td>
<td>39.4</td>
<td>47.9</td>
<td>47.0</td>
<td>54.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Employment</td>
<td>49.8</td>
<td>48.6</td>
<td>44.6</td>
<td>32.8</td>
<td>39.9</td>
<td>43.8</td>
<td>52.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Supplier
Deliveries (NSA)</td>
<td>49.5</td>
<td>53.5</td>
<td>50.5</td>
<td>48.0</td>
<td>49.0</td>
<td>51.1</td>
<td>51.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Prices Index</td>
<td>62.9</td>
<td>60.4</td>
<td>61.2</td>
<td>40.8</td>
<td>49.4</td>
<td>66.0</td>
<td>63.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The service sector clearly is on the road to recovery. The Institute for Supply Management's (ISM) Composite Index for the service & construction sectors rose in March to 55.4 from 53.0 in February. It was the third consecutive [...]

U.S. ISM Nonmanufacturing Index Continues To Strengthen

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

Deflation continues in China

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

Winnie Tapasanun

260113F29.jpg

260113G29.jpg

New single-family home sales dipped 0.1% m/m (+18.7% y/y) to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 737,000 units in October following rises of 3.8% to 738,000 in September and 11.3% to 711,000 in August (+20.5%, 800,000 previously), data from the U.S. Census Bureau showed. The Action Economics Forecast Survey had expected sales of 710,000 for October. The October figure was the first m/m decline since July, though sales remained 42.0% up from the July 2022 low of 519,000. The sales dip occurred alongside a drop in the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate to 6.25% in October, the lowest since September 2024, after declining to 6.35% in September; it had subsequently continued trending downward, according to Freddie Mac.

By region, October new home sales fell m/m in all major regions except the South. Sales in the West plunged 36.3% (-24.8% y/y) to 109,000 in October, the lowest level since July 2022, after a 9.6% increase in September. Sales in the Northeast dropped 14.3% (-40.0% y/y) to 24,000 after registering at 28,000 in September and August. Sales in the Midwest fell 9.0% (+21.3% y/y) to 91,000 following a strong 25.0% September gain. For these three regions, October marked the first m/m decline since July. In contrast, sales in the South surged 16.9% (42.1% y/y) to 513,000, the highest level since March 2021, after a 1.8% September decline. The South remained the dominant region, accounting for 69.6% of total U.S. new home sales.

The median sales price of a new home fell 3.3% (-8.0% y/y) to $392,300 in October on top of a 3.4% decline to $405,800 in September, marking the fourth m/m fall in five months and the lowest level since July 2021. The median sales price had fallen 14.8% since its record high of $460,300 in October 2022. Meanwhile, the average sales price of a new home rose 3.0% (-4.6% y/y) to $498,000 in October after an 8.1% drop to $483,500 in September. The average price was 8.0% below a high of $541,200 in July 2022. These sales price data are not seasonally adjusted.

The number of unsold new homes on the market held steady at 488,000 (+1.7% y/y) in October after four straight m/m declines. The latest figure was 14.6% above a low of 426,000 in July 2023. The seasonally adjusted months' supply of new homes for sale remained at 7.9 months in October and September—the lowest reading since September 2024—after falling to 8.3 months in August. The latest reading, while above a low of 6.9 months in May 2023, remained below a high of 10.6 months in July 2022.

The median number of months a new home stayed on the market rose to 2.7 months in October, the highest since March 2025, after registering at 2.4 months in September and August. The latest number was above its record low of 1.5 months in both September and October of 2022 but well below a peak of 5.1 months in March 2021. These figures date back to January 1975.

New home sales are recorded when the sales contract is signed. New home sales activity and prices are available in Haver's **USECON** database. The consensus expectation figure from Action Economics is available in the **AS1REPNA** database.

260113H29.jpg

260113I29.jpg

- October sales -0.1% (+18.7% y/y) to 737,000; still 42.0% above the July ’22 low.
- Sales fall m/m in all major regions except the South (+16.9%).
- Median sales price down to $392,300, lowest since July ’21; avg. price up to $498,000.
- Months' supply of new homes for sale holds steady at 7.9 mths., lowest since Sept. '24.

U.S. New Home Sales Ease in October After Two Straight M/M Increases

Michael J. Moran

260113L.jpg

260113M.jpg

The consumer price index rose 0.3% in December, while the core index (prices excluding food and energy) rose 0.2%. Both measures were faster than the averages of 0.1 percent in the prior two months. (The Bureau of Labor Statistics did not publish a CPI for October because of the government shutdown. Both the headline and core indexes showed increases of 0.2% for the two-month period from September to November.)

The December results were not pronounced enough to suggest that the restraint in October and November reflected distortions triggered by the government shutdown. At the same time, they were not soft enough to suggest that October and November were signaling faster deceleration in inflation. The past three months seemed to be showing the same degree of random volatility seen in the prior two years, with the underlying trends showing a slight degree of deceleration. The year-over-year increase in headline CPI totaled 2.7%, only slightly slower than 3.0% in mid-2024. The Core has eased a bit more: 2.6% in December versus 3.3% in mid 2024.

260113N.jpg

Prices of core goods and services have been following different paths in the past few years, and they carried different signals in December. Prices of core goods showed no month-to-month change in December, which kept the year-over-year trajectory moving sideways. The flat pattern is encouraging in that it suggests that core goods inflation is perhaps steadying after trending upward since mid-2024. Core service prices rose 0.3 percent in December, in line with the recent average. Core service inflation showed little easing in the early part of 2025, but hints of slowing emerged from September to November. December results, though, raised questions about faster deceleration in service inflation.

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

- Not by enough to suggest that restraint in October and November reflected distortions from the government shutdown
- But by enough to suggest that October and November reflected normal volatility rather than the beginning of a slower trend.

December CPI: Price Increases Quickened After Two Slow Months

260113E.jpg

Japan’s economy watchers index at year-end weakened slightly, but the future index strengthened slightly to counterbalance the drop-off. The December current index is weaker than it was in October as well, as is the headline for the future index. But the queue, or rank, standings of these indexes show the current index at a 60th percentile standing and a queue standing for the future index at its 70th percentile. Despite the end of year give back, the index headline readings are still, for the most part, firm-to-solid.

**The Current Index**
That is an assessment about the rankings of the December data compared to their respective histories back to end 2004- a twenty-year period. However, in terms of the diffusion values of the index per se, the current index has only two readings above the 50 mark indicating actual expansion. Expansion is the rule in current services industries and in nonmanufacturing, a broader sector dominated by services. Employment and readings for corporations overall both show readings close to neutral with diffusion at 49.2 or better, but still short of 50. Current retail at 46.5 is the weakest sector and shows the second weakest diffusion reading.  

The current index standings on employment has a reading below 50%- and that is despite having a diffusion reading near 50 -nearly  unchanged employment month-to-month. That diffusion reading for December is a low relative to its own history. The strongest two sectors on rankings are services and eating & drinking places with standings in the 70-percentile range. Apart from the weak employment standing, the weakest rankings are in the range of the lower sixty percentiles with only retailing lower, in its 56.5 percentile, manufacturing at its 61.7 percentile. 

**The Future Index**
The Future index has a slightly higher queue standing than the current index as noted above, but it is not vastly different. No future components rankings are below their 50%, but again, employment is weakest with a ranking in its 50th-percentile and with housing in its 53rd percentile. Nonmanufacturing and services have the highest queue standings.

In terms of diffusion readings as opposed to standings, the future index headline is above 50 unlike for the current headline. Six of nine observations in December have future readings in their respective 50.6 percentiles. The weakest future reading, housing, with a 46.2 reading, is followed by retailing and eating & drinking places, each at 49.6. But the above-50 readings ae not strong per-se either. The strongest is the services sector at 52.4, then nonmanufacturing at 51.7, followed by employment at 51.4 (and it has the weakest queue standing among future readings). Corporations have a diffusion reading at 50.9, households at 50.3, and manufacturers at 50.2. And that 50.2 reading for manufacturers has a 70.4 percentile standing.

Always remember that diffusion and the rank standings are different things and very different concepts even though they are both measured as percentages; they can be quite different. Various series have different histories and tendencies. Not too surprisingly the current and future diffusion readings are highly correlated (0.96) while the standings are not so well correlated in December between the current and future (0.37). The correlation I speak about above between diffusion and standing is at 0.20 for the current readings in December but is higher at 0.53 for the December future components.

260113.jpg

**Summing up**
The differences in the diffusion values tell us that retailing, households and employment are expected to pick up over the next six months. But housing is expected to weaken.

Japan is still in a fragile state with a relatively new PM still getting adjusted (but rumored to be considering an early snap-election). And with the economy generating excess inflation even with a shrinking population, addressing inflation in Japan is trickier since the Bank of Japan does not want to slay inflation at the cost of bringing back deflation. So, policy is Japan walks on eggshells.

Japan

Japan’s Economy Watchers Survey in December 2025

260112E.jpg

Swiss consumer confidence at end-2025 (in Q4) fell to -34.5 from -32.7 in 2025-Q3. The average level for the confidence reading on data back to 1982 is -16.7 and the current queue standing is 13.9%. The Q4 reading is clearly weak- well below its own average and weaker than this month, less than 15% of the time.

Outlook confidence in Q4 fell to -44.9 from -38.0 in Q3, registering a 15.6 percentile standing. The past confidence reading at -61.2 at end-2025 is down from -43.5 at the end of the third quarter. The standing for this reading is in its 19th percentile. All of these are extremely weak readings.

People provide a job security response in Q4 that eases to -50.1, still well above its historic average of -58.2 for a queue ranking at its 57th percentile.

Personal financial readings are moderate to weak across the board. However, current financial conditions rose to 38.4 in Q4 from 35.2 at the end of Q3 and a queue standing above its median at its 56th percentile. But the outlook for financial conditions is much weaker and also weakened quarter-to-quarter to -31.4 in Q4 from a level of -28.6 in Q3 to a queue ranking in its 8.7 percentile. The evaluation of past financial conditions improved by a very small margin, rising to -38.3 in Q4 from -38.7 in Q3, and to a queue standing at the 11.6 percentile.

The spending environment in Switzerland improved slightly but remained weak, rising to -23.3 in Q4 from -25.5 in Q3 to a standing at their 23.1 percentile standing.

The best part of the report is that the perception of job security is above average, and the current financial situation is above its median. After that, all the individual assessment metrics are weak including overall confidence – everything except assessments for inflation.

On the inflation front, the price outlook is high, rising to a reading of 97.7 in Q4 from 95.8 in Q3 but is still below the second quarter reading at 113.1. The price outlook has a moderately high standing at its 70.5 percentile. This standing is slightly below the standing for prices past which is at 76.3%. The past metric was still rising in the fourth quarter but was weaker than its reading in both Q1 and Q2 of 2025.

260112.jpg

**Summing up**
Inflation fears appear to still linger, but they are not as intense as they once were. Confidence overall is weak, but the most important aspects of job security and assessment of financial conditions have the strongest readings; yet, the environment for major purchases is still at a weak position. In Switzerland, people do not feel threatened or financially unstable, but they are not positive enough to spend freely either. And inflation fears are creeping up again all key trends to watch.

Switzerland

Swiss Confidence Sags at End-2025

Tian Yong Woon

This week, we highlight several pertinent developments that have shaped the start of the year and may carry longer-lasting implications. To begin with, the recent capture of former Venezuelan President Maduro by the US authorities and the subsequent crude oil trade deal could have far-reaching effects—potentially altering China’s imports of Venezuelan crude and broader bilateral trade dynamics (chart 1), as well as global energy supply considerations (chart 2).

In Japan, Prime Minister Takaichi’s reported consideration of early snap elections, if enacted, would likely inject near-term political uncertainty (chart 3). However, should her gambit succeed, it could reduce  policy uncertainty and pave the way for more fiscal policy activism. Against this backdrop, it is unsurprising that investors remain divided over the timing of the Bank of Japan’s next policy tightening, although the upcoming Spring wage negotiations (chart 4) ought to provide clearer signals for the monetary policy outlook.

Turning to investor expectations from the latest Blue Chip survey, India is once again seen as the growth leader among major Asian economies, while also poised to record the highest inflation (chart 5). China, by contrast, is expected to deliver sub-5% growth this year alongside muted inflation. Lastly, in Southeast Asia, pockets of geopolitical tension persist—notably between Thailand and Cambodia (chart 6)—as Thailand prepares for snap elections next month.

**The US, Venezuela, and China**
2026 got off to a turbulent start following a recent US military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of former President Maduro and his transfer to the US to face drug-related charges. In the aftermath, Venezuela’s former vice president (Delcy Rodriguez) was sworn in as interim leader, while US and Venezuelan authorities have reportedly already reached a new crude oil deal. Under the agreement, Venezuela would sell 30–50 million barrels of crude to the US at market prices, with the proceeds controlled by the US. These developments have several potential implications. First, some Venezuelan crude initially destined for China would likely be diverted to the US. China has been the main buyer of Venezuelan oil in recent years, although this is likely underreported in official data (chart 1), which would tighten conditions for the crude-import-dependent country. Second, an eventual increase in Venezuelan crude supply—previously constrained by heavy US sanctions—would likely exert downward pressure on global oil prices, all else equal, although significant challenges remain, as discussed below.

260112T1.jpg

To illustrate the potential significance of Venezuela’s crude oil industry, chart 2 shows that the country holds nearly a fifth of the world’s proved crude oil reserves. However, output remains disproportionately low relative to reserves, possibly reflecting years of US sanctions as well as mismanagement and chronic underinvestment. Given the current state of the industry, substantial investment will likely be required for Venezuela to restore production to historically high levels and to more fully tap its deep proved reserves. As a result, any meaningful surge in Venezuelan crude output is likely to take time, which may help explain the muted market response to recent US–Venezuelan developments. Also of note, China has been a major lender to Venezuela, including through “oil-for-loan” arrangements in which repayments are made in crude oil. It remains to be seen how these existing and future agreements may be affected by recent developments.

260112T2.jpg

**Japan**
Setting aside the interplay between the US, Venezuela, and China, another economy worth watching early this year is Japan. Developments continue to unfold following renewed China–Japan tensions after Prime Minister Takaichi assumed office. With her approval ratings having remained consistently high since taking the helm, Takaichi is reportedly considering snap elections as early as next month to strengthen her ruling coalition’s parliamentary position. While a stronger mandate could reduce policy uncertainty, near-term political uncertainty would be the likely case. This interim uncertainty may be weighing on the yen. It is being compounded by expectations of upcoming pro-growth measures, including the $118 million supplementary budget passed last December and the prospect of additional fiscal stimulus next fiscal year, contingent on an electoral win (chart 3).

260112T3.jpg

Turning back to Japan and the monetary policy outlook, investors remain divided over the timing of the Bank of Japan’s (BoJ) next policy move following its December rate hike. This uncertainty is understandable given the multiple moving parts shaping the BoJ’s path, including the factors discussed above. Looking ahead, the upcoming annual wage negotiations and broader trends in wage growth (chart 4) will be closely watched by the BoJ as key preconditions for further rate hikes. Reflecting this uncertainty, our latest Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey shows investors split between expectations for a hike in March and views that the next move will only come after April.

260112T4.jpg

**Blue Chip Economic Indicators**
Delving into the latest Blue Chip survey results, chart 5 summarizes panellists’ expectations for growth and inflation this year. Focusing on major Asian economies, and as in 2025, India is seen to be leading the pack in terms of both real GDP growth and CPI inflation. That said, the inflation outlook may be subject to further revisions should India’s currently muted inflation—driven by falling food prices—persist for longer. For China, panellists currently expect sub-5% growth this year, implying a likely miss should a 5% growth target again be pursued. Inflation in China is once again expected to remain subdued. Japan, meanwhile, is forecast to post sub-1% real GDP growth, while CPI inflation is expected to hover around the authorities’ preferred 2% level. Looking ahead, attention will also turn to the IMF’s upcoming World Economic Outlook forecasts, due later this month.

260112T5.jpg

**Southeast Asia**
Last but not least, turning to Southeast Asia, promising AI- and tech-related growth continues in economies such as Malaysia and Vietnam. However, pockets of geopolitical tension persist, notably between Thailand and Cambodia, where border clashes have occurred despite previous attempts at peace, including one co-brokered by US President Trump. Against this backdrop, Thailand’s Prime Minister Anutin is preparing for snap elections in early February, amid a reported rise in nationalist sentiment linked to the ongoing clashes. These developments create latent risks for both Thailand and Cambodia (chart 6), while the uncertainty surrounding the elections also clouds the implementation of longer-term policies aimed at addressing Thailand’s deeper structural challenges.