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 alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100422d.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
Improvement in the labor market has returned. The Bureau of
Labor Statistics reported that initial claims for jobless insurance
fell 24,000 to 456,000. It was the lowest level since late last month
and about matched expectations for a decline to 450,000 claims. The
latest was down from the recession peak of 651,000 reached in March of
2009. The four-week moving average of initial claims rose ever so
slightly to 460,250.. The latest figure is for the survey week for
April nonfarm payroll employment. Claims rose 2,000 (0.4%) from the
March period. During the last ten years there has an 82% correlation
between the one-month change in claims and the change in payroll
employment.
A 40,000 decline in continuing claims for unemployment
insurance during the latest week reversed just some of the prior week's
upwardly revised 124,000 increase. Still, they were 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 4.644 mil. This series
dates back to 1966.
Extended benefits for unemployment insurance jumped to
146,583. Nevertheless, they were down by three-quarters 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.
The insured unemployment rate slipped to 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 3 were in Alaska (6.6 percent), Oregon (6.1), Wisconsin (5.5),
Nevada (5.4), Puerto Rico (5.4), Idaho (5.3), Michigan (5.2), Montana
(5.2), Pennsylvania (5.1), and North Carolina (5.0). The lowest insured
unemployment rates were in Virginia (2.0), Texas (2.2), Georgia (2.9),
Florida (3.1), Maryland (3.2), Wyoming (3.3), Ohio (3.6), New York
(4.0) and Maine (4.1). 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.
Extended Unemployment and UI Benefits from
the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is available here <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-12.html">here</a>.

<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100422e.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100422f.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">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">04/17/10</th>
<th scope="col">04/10/10</th>
<th scope="col">04/03/10</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>456</td>
<td>480</td>
<td>463</td>
<td>-28.0%</td>
<td>572</td>
<td>419</td>
<td>321</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>4,646</td>
<td>4,686</td>
<td>-23.2%</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>3.7</td>
<td>4.6 (4/2009)</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>1.9</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Improvement in the labor market has returned. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that initial claims for jobless insurance fell 24,000 to 456,000. It was the lowest level since late last month and about matched expectations for a [...]

U.S. Unemployment Insurance Claims Fall, Reversing Earlier 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>
 



<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100422a.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
For finished goods, producer price inflation picked up further
last month and pressure is building for future increases. The March
finished goods PPI reversed its prior month's decline with a 0.7%
increase. As a result,the y/y gain remained the strongest in eighteen
months. The monthly increase exceeded Consensus expectations for a 0.5%
rise.
Higher prices for finished foods was behind the acceleration
in the PPI last month with a 2.4% increase (6.7% y/y). Vegetable prices
surged by roughly one-half m/m (56.1% y/y), again due to severe
weather. Egg prices also jumped by 9.4% and were up by one-third y/y
while beef prices firmed for the third consecutive month (10.7% y/y).
These gains were tempered by a 1.1% decline (-6.0% y/y) in pasta
product prices and a 0.5% decline (-0.5% y/y) in bakery prices.
A moderate 0.7% gain (23.2% y/y) in energy prices recouped a
piece of the 2.9% February drop. A strong monthly gain (66.8% y/y) in
gasoline prices recovered a February decline while home heating oil
prices also firmed (49.9% y/y). Finally, natural gas prices were weak
(-5.1% y/y) and electricity prices rose modestly (0.3% y/y).
Finished producer prices excluding food &amp; energy again
were weak with an expected 0.1% uptick. The resulting 0.8% y/y increase
remained nearly the weakest since early-2004. Continuing to lose steam
was the PPI for finished consumer goods less food &amp; energy. It
increased just 0.1% (1.4% y/y), half the annual gains during the last
two years. Finished durables prices were unchanged (0.6% y/y) while
core finished consumer nondurable goods prices gained 0.3% (2.1% y/y),
their weakest since early 2007. Capital equipment prices were unchanged
(+0.1% y/y).
Upward pressure on finished goods prices to come was suggested
by firmer prices for intermediate goods. Their 0.6% increase raised the
y/y gain to 7.8%. The 0.4% uptick (26.5% y/y) in energy prices and the
0.5% decline (+2.6% y/y) perhaps belied the degree of pressure. Core
prices rose 0.7% and the 4.0% y/y gain was the strongest since
late-2008. The strength reflected a 24.2% gain in lumber prices, a
one-third increase in organic chemical prices and a one-half y/y price
increase in the price of copper &amp; mill shapes. Offsetting these
gains was widespread weakness elsewhere.
Additional price pressure to come also may be evident in the
3.2% increase (33.6 y/y) in the crude materials PPI. Energy prices rose
by one-half y/y after last year's 43.0% decline. Food prices also were
on the rise with an accelerated 12.7% y/y increase led by higher beef
&amp; pork prices &amp; higher milk prices. Core crude prices
jumped 6.0% as part of a 44.8% y/y increase. That reversed last year's
decline. The gain was led by higher aluminum (76.5% y/y) prices and
higher scrap copper prices which have doubled. Iron &amp; steel
scrap prices also have doubled.
The producer price data is available in Haver's USECON
database. More detailed data is in the PPI and in
the PPIR databases.
 


<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100422b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100422c.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/USECON/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer Price Index</a>(%)</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</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">Finished Goods</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>-2.5</td>
<td>6.4</td>
<td>3.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Less Food &amp;
Energy</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>2.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>-8.4</td>
<td>10.3</td>
<td>4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Less Food &amp;
Energy</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>-4.2</td>
<td>7.4</td>
<td>2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>-3.5</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>33.6</td>
<td>-30.4</td>
<td>21.4</td>
<td>11.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Less Food &amp;
Energy</td>
<td>6.0</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>6.6</td>
<td>44.8</td>
<td>-23.5</td>
<td>14.8</td>
<td>15.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

For finished goods, producer price inflation picked up further last month and pressure is building for future increases. The March finished goods PPI reversed its prior month's decline with a 0.7% increase. As a result,the y/y gain [...]

U.S. PPI Firms; Core Prices Remain Soft

<!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/100422a.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
For finished goods, producer price inflation picked up further
last month and pressure is building for future increases. The March
finished goods PPI reversed its prior month's decline with a 0.7%
increase. As a result,the y/y gain remained the strongest in eighteen
months. The monthly increase exceeded Consensus expectations for a 0.5%
rise.
Higher prices for finished foods was behind the acceleration
in the PPI last month with a 2.4% increase (6.7% y/y). Vegetable prices
surged by roughly one-half m/m (56.1% y/y), again due to severe
weather. Egg prices also jumped by 9.4% and were up by one-third y/y
while beef prices firmed for the third consecutive month (10.7% y/y).
These gains were tempered by a 1.1% decline (-6.0% y/y) in pasta
product prices and a 0.5% decline (-0.5% y/y) in bakery prices.
A moderate 0.7% gain (23.2% y/y) in energy prices recouped a
piece of the 2.9% February drop. A strong monthly gain (66.8% y/y) in
gasoline prices recovered a February decline while home heating oil
prices also firmed (49.9% y/y). Finally, natural gas prices were weak
(-5.1% y/y) and electricity prices rose modestly (0.3% y/y).
Finished producer prices excluding food &amp; energy again
were weak with an expected 0.1% uptick. The resulting 0.8% y/y increase
remained nearly the weakest since early-2004. Continuing to lose steam
was the PPI for finished consumer goods less food &amp; energy. It
increased just 0.1% (1.4% y/y), half the annual gains during the last
two years. Finished durables prices were unchanged (0.6% y/y) while
core finished consumer nondurable goods prices gained 0.3% (2.1% y/y),
their weakest since early 2007. Capital equipment prices were unchanged
(+0.1% y/y).
Upward pressure on finished goods prices to come was suggested
by firmer prices for intermediate goods. Their 0.6% increase raised the
y/y gain to 7.8%. The 0.4% uptick (26.5% y/y) in energy prices and the
0.5% decline (+2.6% y/y) perhaps belied the degree of pressure. Core
prices rose 0.7% and the 4.0% y/y gain was the strongest since
late-2008. The strength reflected a 24.2% gain in lumber prices, a
one-third increase in organic chemical prices and a one-half y/y price
increase in the price of copper &amp; mill shapes. Offsetting these
gains was widespread weakness elsewhere.
Additional price pressure to come also may be evident in the
3.2% increase (33.6 y/y) in the crude materials PPI. Energy prices rose
by one-half y/y after last year's 43.0% decline. Food prices also were
on the rise with an accelerated 12.7% y/y increase led by higher beef
&amp; pork prices &amp; higher milk prices. Core crude prices
jumped 6.0% as part of a 44.8% y/y increase. That reversed last year's
decline. The gain was led by higher aluminum (76.5% y/y) prices and
higher scrap copper prices which have doubled. Iron &amp; steel
scrap prices also have doubled.
The producer price data is available in Haver's USECON
database. More detailed data is in the PPI and in
the PPIR databases.
 


<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100422b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100422c.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/USECON/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer
Price Index</a>(%)</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</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">Finished Goods</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>-2.5</td>
<td>6.4</td>
<td>3.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Less Food &amp;
Energy</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>2.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>-8.4</td>
<td>10.3</td>
<td>4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Less Food &amp;
Energy</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>-4.2</td>
<td>7.4</td>
<td>2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>-3.5</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>33.6</td>
<td>-30.4</td>
<td>21.4</td>
<td>11.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Less Food &amp;
Energy</td>
<td>6.0</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>6.6</td>
<td>44.8</td>
<td>-23.5</td>
<td>14.8</td>
<td>15.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Unemployment Insurance Claims
Fall, Reversing Earlier Gains 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> April 22, 2010


<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100422d.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
Improvement in the labor market has returned. The Bureau of
Labor Statistics reported that initial claims for jobless insurance
fell 24,000 to 456,000. It was the lowest level since late last month
and about matched expectations for a decline to 450,000 claims. The
latest was down from the recession peak of 651,000 reached in March of
2009. The four-week moving average of initial claims rose ever so
slightly to 460,250.. The latest figure is for the survey week for
April nonfarm payroll employment. Claims rose 2,000 (0.4%) from the
March period. During the last ten years there has an 82% correlation
between the one-month change in claims and the change in payroll
employment.
A 40,000 decline in continuing claims for unemployment
insurance during the latest week reversed just some of the prior week's
upwardly revised 124,000 increase. Still, they were 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 4.644 mil. This series
dates back to 1966.
Extended benefits for unemployment insurance jumped to
146,583. Nevertheless, they were down by three-quarters 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.
The insured unemployment rate slipped to 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 3 were in Alaska (6.6 percent), Oregon (6.1), Wisconsin (5.5),
Nevada (5.4), Puerto Rico (5.4), Idaho (5.3), Michigan (5.2), Montana
(5.2), Pennsylvania (5.1), and North Carolina (5.0). The lowest insured
unemployment rates were in Virginia (2.0), Texas (2.2), Georgia (2.9),
Florida (3.1), Maryland (3.2), Wyoming (3.3), Ohio (3.6), New York
(4.0) and Maine (4.1). 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.
Extended Unemployment and UI Benefits from
the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is available here <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-12.html">here</a>.

<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100422e.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100422f.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">Unemployment
Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">04/17/10</th>
<th scope="col">04/10/10</th>
<th scope="col">04/03/10</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>456</td>
<td>480</td>
<td>463</td>
<td>-28.0%</td>
<td>572</td>
<td>419</td>
<td>321</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>4,646</td>
<td>4,686</td>
<td>-23.2%</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>3.7</td>
<td>4.6 (4/2009)</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>1.9</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Existing Home Sales Improve 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a>April 22,2010 


<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100422g.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
As often is the case, March weather came in like a lion and
went out like a lamb. Also coming last month was the April expiration
of a Federal home-buyer tax credit. Together, these forces helped lift
existing home sales by 6.8% to 5.350M (AR) according to the National
Association of Realtors. The gain followed declines during the prior
thee months and slightly exceeded Consensus expectations. Total sales
include sales of condos and co-ops. Sales of existing single-family
homes alone rose 7.3% from February to 4.680M. (These data have a
longer history than the total sales series). Sales of condos and co-ops
rose by nearly one-third from the last year.
Sales recently have been helped by a tax credit for first-time
home buyers. The credit of up to $8,000 runs though April 30.
Additionally, a credit of up to $6,500 is available to some existing
home owners who move. The full details of the home-buyer tax credit can
be found <a href="http://www.federalhousingtaxcredit.com/2009/faq.php">here</a>.
The median price of all existing homes also improved last
month to $170,700 but remained off 25% from the 2007 peak. The price of
a single-family home rose 4.1% to $170,700 (-2.1% y/y). Earlier price
weakness sharply raised home affordability; by three-quarters from the
2006 low. The median family income for existing home buyers was $60,498
and mortgage payments amounted to 14.2% of that total.
The number of unsold homes (single-family &amp; co-ops)
for sale rose 1.5%; down slightly from last year. At the current sales
rate there was an 8.0 months' supply of homes on the market. That was
down from a high of 11.2 months during April of 2008. For single-family
homes, the inventory rose m/m to a 7.7 months' supply.
The data on existing home sales, prices and affordability can
be found in Haver's USECON database. The regional
price, affordability and inventory data is available in the REALTOR
database.

<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100422h.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100422i.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">Existing
Home Sales (Thous, SAAR)</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">March 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">Total</td>
<td>5,350</td>
<td>5,010</td>
<td>5,050</td>
<td>16.1%</td>
<td>5,160</td>
<td>4,893</td>
<td>5,674</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Northeast</td>
<td>890</td>
<td>840</td>
<td>820</td>
<td>25.4</td>
<td>863</td>
<td>845</td>
<td>1,010</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Midwest</td>
<td>1,190</td>
<td>1,110</td>
<td>1,080</td>
<td>15.5</td>
<td>1,166</td>
<td>1,130</td>
<td>1,331</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; South</td>
<td>1,970</td>
<td>1,840</td>
<td>1,870</td>
<td>13.9</td>
<td>1,913</td>
<td>1,860</td>
<td>2,243</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; West</td>
<td>1,300</td>
<td>1,220</td>
<td>1,280</td>
<td>14.0</td>
<td>1,216</td>
<td>1,064</td>
<td>1,095</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Single-Family Sales</td>
<td>4,680</td>
<td>4,360</td>
<td>4,430</td>
<td>13.3</td>
<td>4,573</td>
<td>4,341</td>
<td>4,960</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Median Price, Total, $
(NSA)</td>
<td>170,700</td>
<td>164,600</td>
<td>164,900</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>172,742</td>
<td>197,233</td>
<td>216,633</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
EMU PMIs Make Strong April Gains 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> April 22, 2010



<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100422j.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">The
EMU PMIs
for MFG and Services each made strong gains in April. The gain in MFG
was strong and is the 22nd greatest gain out of 154, a top 13% gain.
The services index rise in April ranked 9th out of 141 observations
placing it in the top 6% of its range. April was a good month of
stepped up activity in the Euro-Area. The levels of the MFG and Service
indices place the MFG index in the 89th percentile of its range and the
services measure in the 70th percentile of its range. Both are strong
readings (top 11th percentile and top 30th percentiles,
respectively).&nbsp;
The services index is structurally higher than the MFG index.
Its
average is 53.66 compared to 51.18 for MFG over the past 140 months
when both indices existed.&nbsp;
The sharp rebound in the PMIs this month
is another step in the direction of believing in a rebound in the
Euro-Area region. To be sure other macro-data continue to run hot and
cold. The UK may have the most mercurial readings in Europe (it is an
EU member, not an EMU member). Greece&#8217;s fortunes also continue to blow
hot and cold. But the strong EMU PMIs are reassuring. The services
index is at its strongest Since August 2007. The MFG index is at its
strongest level since June of 2006. These are substantial benchmarks in
establishing the new relative strength of the ongoing expansion.
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="3" scope="col">FLASH
Readings </th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th colspan="3" scope="col">Markit
PMIs for the
Euro-Area</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>MFG</td>
<td>Services</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Apr-10</td>
<td>57.55</td>
<td>55.51</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Mar-10</td>
<td>56.65</td>
<td>54.08</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Feb-10</td>
<td>54.23</td>
<td>51.81</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Jan-10</td>
<td>52.39</td>
<td>52.50</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3" class="firstcol">Segment
Averages</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">3-Mo</td>
<td>54.42</td>
<td>53.71</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">6-Mo</td>
<td>52.80</td>
<td>53.39</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">12-Mo</td>
<td>48.39</td>
<td>50.63</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3" class="firstcol">140-Mo
Range</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">High</td>
<td>60.47</td>
<td>62.36</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Low</td>
<td>33.55</td>
<td>39.24</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">% Range</td>
<td>89.2%</td>
<td>70.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Range</td>
<td>26.92</td>
<td>23.12</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">AVERAGE</td>
<td>51.18</td>
<td>53.66</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<thead><tr>
<a href="http://www.haver.com/COMMENT/archive.htm"> 
</a></tr>
</thead>
</table>

</body></html>

U.S. PPI Firms; Core Prices RemainSoft

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100317a.jpg" width="353">
For finished goods, producer price inflation picked up further last month and pressure is building for future increases. The March finished goods PPI reversed its prior month&#39;s decline with a 0.7% increase. As a result,the y/y gain remained the strongest in eighteen months. The monthly increase exceeded Consensus expectations for a 0.5% rise.
Higher prices for finished foods was behind the acceleration in the PPI last month with a 2.4% increase (6.7% y/y). Vegetable prices surged by roughly one-half m/m (56.1% y/y), again due to severe weather. Egg prices also jumped by 9.4% and were up by one-third y/y while beef prices firmed for the third consecutive month (10.7% y/y). These gains were tempered by a 1.1% decline (-6.0% y/y) in pasta product prices and a 0.5% decline (-0.5% y/y) in bakery prices.
A moderate 0.7% gain (23.2% y/y) in energy prices recouped a piece of the 2.9% February drop. A strong monthly gain (66.8% y/y) in gasoline prices recovered a February decline while home heating oil prices also firmed (49.9% y/y). Finally, natural gas prices were weak (-5.1% y/y) and electricity prices rose modestly (0.3% y/y).
Finished producer prices excluding food &amp; energy again were weak with an expected 0.1% uptick. The resulting 0.8% y/y increase remained nearly the weakest since early-2004. Continuing to lose steam was the PPI for finished consumer goods less food &amp; energy. It increased just 0.1% (1.4% y/y), half the annual gains during the last two years. Finished durables prices were unchanged (0.6% y/y) while core finished consumer nondurable goods prices gained 0.3% (2.1% y/y), their weakest since early 2007. Capital equipment prices were unchanged (+0.1% y/y).
Upward pressure on finished goods prices to come was suggested by firmer prices for intermediate goods. Their 0.6% increase raised the y/y gain to 7.8%. The 0.4% uptick (26.5% y/y) in energy prices and the 0.5% decline (+2.6% y/y) perhaps belied the degree of pressure. Core prices rose 0.7% and the 4.0% y/y gain was the strongest since late-2008. The strength reflected a 24.2% gain in lumber prices, a one-third increase in organic chemical prices and a one-half y/y price increase in the price of copper &amp; mill shapes. Offsetting these gains was widespread weakness elsewhere.
Additional price pressure to come also may be evident in the 3.2% increase (33.6 y/y) in the crude materials PPI. Energy prices rose by one-half y/y after last year&#39;s 43.0% decline. Food prices also were on the rise with an accelerated 12.7% y/y increase led by higher beef &amp; pork prices &amp; higher milk prices. Core crude prices jumped 6.0% as part of a 44.8% y/y increase. That reversed last year&#39;s decline. The gain was led by higher aluminum (76.5% y/y) prices and higher scrap copper prices which have doubled. Iron &amp; steel scrap prices also have doubled.
The producer price data is available in Haver&#39;s USECON database. More detailed data is in the PPI and in the PPIR databases.
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="130" width="971"><tbody></tbody><tbody><tr bgcolor="#595454"><td height="20" width="309"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM" style="COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">Producer Price Index</a>(%)</td><td align="center" height="20" width="94">March</td><td align="center" height="20" width="94">February</td><td align="center" height="20" width="94">January</td><td align="center" height="20" width="94">Y/Y</td><td align="center" height="20" width="94">2009</td><td align="center" height="20" width="94">2008</td><td align="center" height="20" width="94">2007</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#fff8c6"><td height="16" width="309">Finished Goods</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">0.7</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">-0.6</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">1.4</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">6.1</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">-2.5</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">6.4</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">3.9</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#fff8c6"><td height="16" width="309"> Less Food &amp; Energy</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">0.1</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">0.1</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">0.3</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">0.8</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">2.6</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">3.4</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">2.0</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#fff8c6"><td height="16" width="309">Intermediate Goods</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">0.6</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">0.1</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">1.7</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">7.8</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">-8.4</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">10.3</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">4.0</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#fff8c6"><td height="16" width="309"> Less Food &amp; Energy</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">0.7</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">0.9</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">0.5</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">4.0</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">-4.2</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">7.4</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">2.8</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#fff8c6"><td height="16" width="309">Crude Goods</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">3.2</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">-3.5</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">9.6</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">33.6</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">-30.4</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">21.4</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">11.9</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#fff8c6"><td height="16" width="309"> Less Food &amp; Energy</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">6.0</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">-0.6</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">6.6</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">44.8</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">-23.5</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">14.8</td><td align="center" height="16" width="94">15.6</td></tr></tbody></table> 

<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/USECON/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM" style="COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">Producer Price Index</a>(%)</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</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">Finished Goods</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>-2.5</td>
<td>6.4</td>
<td>3.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>2.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>-8.4</td>
<td>10.3</td>
<td>4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>-4.2</td>
<td>7.4</td>
<td>2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>-3.5</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>33.6</td>
<td>-30.4</td>
<td>21.4</td>
<td>11.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>6.0</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>6.6</td>
<td>44.8</td>
<td>-23.5</td>
<td>14.8</td>
<td>15.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Tom Moeller 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 22, 2010


<img align="left" alt="alt" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100415h.jpg" style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px solid; BORDER-LEFT: 0px solid; WIDTH: 353px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 265px; BORDER-TOP: 0px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px solid" width="353">
Improvement in the labor market has returned. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that initial claims for jobless insurance fell 24,000 to 456,000. It was the lowest level since late last month and about matched expectations for a decline to 450,000 claims. The latest was down from the recession peak of 651,000 reached in March of 2009. The four-week moving average of initial claims rose ever so slightly to 460,250.. The latest figure is for the survey week for April nonfarm payroll employment. Claims rose 2,000 (0.4%) from the March period. During the last ten years there has an 82% correlation between the one-month change in claims and the change in payroll employment.
A 40,000 decline in continuing claims for unemployment insurance during the latest week reversed just some of the prior week&#39;s upwardly revised 124,000 increase. Still, they were 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&#39; ability to find employment. The four-week average of continuing claims also fell to a cycle low of 4.644 mil. This series dates back to 1966.
Extended benefits for unemployment insurance jumped to 146,583. Nevertheless, they were down by three-quarters 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.
The insured unemployment rate slipped to 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 3 were in Alaska (6.6 percent), Oregon (6.1), Wisconsin (5.5), Nevada (5.4), Puerto Rico (5.4), Idaho (5.3), Michigan (5.2), Montana (5.2), Pennsylvania (5.1), and North Carolina (5.0). The lowest insured unemployment rates were in Virginia (2.0), Texas (2.2), Georgia (2.9), Florida (3.1), Maryland (3.2), Wyoming (3.3), Ohio (3.6), New York (4.0) and Maine (4.1). These data are not seasonally adjusted but the overall insured unemployment rate is.
The unemployment insurance claims data is available in Haver&#39;s WEEKLY database and the state data is in the REGIONW database.
Extended Unemployment and UI Benefits from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is available here <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-12.html">http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-12.html</a>

<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">04/17/10</th>
<th scope="col">04/10/10</th>
<th scope="col">04/03/10</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>456</td>
<td>480</td>
<td>463</td>
<td>-28.0%</td>
<td>572</td>
<td>419</td>
<td>321</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>4,646</td>
<td>4,686</td>
<td>-23.2%</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>3.7</td>
<td>4.6 (4/2009)</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>1.9</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/100421a.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
The UK claimant count continues to make its slow turn to lower
levels. The unemployment rate calculated from claimant data also is
trending lower. However, a broader ILO survey has shown the opposite to
be true. On the ILO measure the number of unemployed is up to its
highest tally since 1994. As in the US, the ranks of the long-term
unemployed are growing in the UK. The ILO rate of unemployment, also a
separate calculation, went up to 8% from 7.8%.
These metrics take on added importance in the middle of UK
elections. The claimant figures tend to grab the headlines in the UK
but the ILO numbers are usually mentioned too. While the economy does
seem to be turning the corner, the speed of the turn is slow and the
political fighting over what it means is intense.
In a release of the minutes of the BOE&#8217;s last meeting there is
mention of a growing risk of inflation. Up to now&#8217; the BOE has been
talking of an inflation overshoot of its target that was not a matter
of concern. In these minutes for the first time there is talk of
&#8216;upside risks&#8217; to inflation laid at the feet of rising oil and
commodity prices. Still, the bottom line is that the committee did not
see these risks as substantial enough to call for any change in the
current policy path.
The UK seems to be in the same boat as every other major
economy in so far as its economic data blow hot then cold sometimes on
the same day! This obviously this makes it hard to get a fix on what
the economy is really doing. On top that, electioneering just muddies
the waters even more as politicians try to take each number to make
some political gain from it. Now the BOE is seeing shifting risks for
inflation. With all of this in process the UK remains one of the most
enigmatic economies in Europe.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr><th colspan="7" scope="col">UK Claimant Count </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>3mo</td>
<td>6-mo</td>
<td>12-mo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="3">Level in Month</td>
<td colspan="3">Avg in Period</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">U-Rate:Claimants</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>4.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="3">Change in MO</td>
<td colspan="3">Change over period</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Change on 000s</td>
<td>-32.9</td>
<td>-40.1</td>
<td>16.2</td>
<td>-56.8</td>
<td>-73.4</td>
<td>90.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The UK claimant count continues to make its slow turn to lower levels. The unemployment rate calculated from claimant data also is trending lower. However, a broader ILO survey has shown the opposite to be true. On the ILO measure the [...]

UK Claimant Count Turns Lower Amid Reports With Conflicting Signals

<!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/100421a.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
The UK claimant count continues to make its slow turn to lower
levels. The unemployment rate calculated from claimant data also is
trending lower. However, a broader ILO survey has shown the opposite to
be true. On the ILO measure the number of unemployed is up to its
highest tally since 1994. As in the US, the ranks of the long-term
unemployed are growing in the UK. The ILO rate of unemployment, also a
separate calculation, went up to 8% from 7.8%.
These metrics take on added importance in the middle of UK
elections. The claimant figures tend to grab the headlines in the UK
but the ILO numbers are usually mentioned too. While the economy does
seem to be turning the corner, the speed of the turn is slow and the
political fighting over what it means is intense.
In a release of the minutes of the BOE&#8217;s last meeting there is
mention of a growing risk of inflation. Up to now&#8217; the BOE has been
talking of an inflation overshoot of its target that was not a matter
of concern. In these minutes for the first time there is talk of
&#8216;upside risks&#8217; to inflation laid at the feet of rising oil and
commodity prices. Still, the bottom line is that the committee did not
see these risks as substantial enough to call for any change in the
current policy path.
The UK seems to be in the same boat as every other major
economy in so far as its economic data blow hot then cold sometimes on
the same day! This obviously this makes it hard to get a fix on what
the economy is really doing. On top that, electioneering just muddies
the waters even more as politicians try to take each number to make
some political gain from it. Now the BOE is seeing shifting risks for
inflation. With all of this in process the UK remains one of the most
enigmatic economies in Europe.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="7" scope="col">UK
Claimant Count </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>3mo</td>
<td>6-mo</td>
<td>12-mo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="3">Level in Month</td>
<td colspan="3">Avg in Period</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">U-Rate:Claimants</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>4.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="3">Change in MO</td>
<td colspan="3">Change over period</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Change on 000s</td>
<td>-32.9</td>
<td>-40.1</td>
<td>16.2</td>
<td>-56.8</td>
<td>-73.4</td>
<td>90.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

UK Claimant Count Turns Lower AmidReports With Conflicting Signals

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/100420e.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">The
German
financial community is upbeat on Germany's economic prospects over the
next six months despite the disruptions caused by the eruption of the
Icelandic volcano.&nbsp; The ZEW Survey of institutional investors
and analysts took place over the period, March 29 to April 19, that
latter part of which was affected by the eruption of the
volcano.&nbsp; The survey revealed that those expecting
macroeconomic conditions to improve over the next six months exceeded
those expecting conditions to worsen by 53% up from 44.5% in
March.&nbsp; This was the first increase since September of last
year and its magnitude exceeded consensus estimates of a
rise.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 The
change in the appraisal of current conditions was even
greater.&nbsp;&nbsp; The financial community has
had a dim view of current conditions since August, 2008 when the
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100420f.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">pessimists
regarding current conditions began to exceed the
optimists.&nbsp; By May 2009 the excess of pessimists reached
92.8%.&nbsp;&nbsp; Since then, there has been a steady decline
in the percentage of pessimists.&nbsp; In April, the excess of
pessimists was 39.2% an 11.7 point decline from the 51.9% of March. The
percent balances between optimist and pessimists regarding current
conditions and expectations for the next six months are shown in the
first chart.
 The
improved appraisal of current conditions and expectations has led
to some changes in profit expectations.&nbsp; The second chart
shows those industries where profit expectations have increased the
most in the last month.&nbsp; Although expectations for profits in
the Vehicles/Automotive and Consumption/Trade are small and even
negative in the case of the latter, expectations for profits in both
these industries have increased the most in the last month.&nbsp;
Profit expectations for these industries and two other industries where
profit expectations have had big increases--Machinery and
Electronics--are shown in the second chart.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Over the
past few months
the economic news in Germany had been encouraging.&nbsp; The euro
has declined almost 11% since early December.&nbsp; Unemployment
continues to fall and&nbsp; new orders, particularly foreign, have
been strong. may have contributed to the good feeling in the financial
community
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Percent</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 10</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 10&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 10&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 10</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 09</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 09</th>
<th scope="col">Oct 09</th>
<th scope="col">Sep 09</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Expectation 6 mo
Ahead</td>
<td>53.0</td>
<td>44.5</td>
<td>15.1</td>
<td>47.2</td>
<td>50.4</td>
<td>56.1</td>
<td>56.0</td>
<td>57.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Current Conditions</td>
<td>-39.2</td>
<td>-51.9</td>
<td>-54.8</td>
<td>-56.6</td>
<td>-60.6</td>
<td>-65.6</td>
<td>-72.2</td>
<td>-74.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol" style="font-weight: bold;">Profit
Expectations</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Vehicles/Automotive</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>-25.4</td>
<td>-29.7</td>
<td>-23.2</td>
<td>-26.5</td>
<td>-33.9</td>
<td>-40.9</td>
<td>-43.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumption/Trade</td>
<td>-2.3</td>
<td>-15.6</td>
<td>-18.9</td>
<td>-12.1</td>
<td>-10.4</td>
<td>-18.4</td>
<td>-16.7</td>
<td>-20.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Machinery</td>
<td>52.1</td>
<td>36.7</td>
<td>29.6</td>
<td>33.8</td>
<td>26.9</td>
<td>16.8</td>
<td>14.4</td>
<td>12.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Electronics</td>
<td>41.2</td>
<td>29.8</td>
<td>22.0</td>
<td>27.0</td>
<td>22.8</td>
<td>18.1</td>
<td>17.4</td>
<td>9.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

</body></html>

The German financial community is upbeat on Germany's economic prospects over the next six months despite the disruptions caused by the eruption of the Icelandic volcano. The ZEW Survey of institutional investors and analysts took [...]

German Investors Upbeat On Economic Prospects 6 Months Ahead

<!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 solid src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100420d.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
Consumers still seem interested in spending money after being
cooped up indoors this winter. As a result, chain store sales last week
held onto the sharp gain early in the month and the y/y change remained
at 4.6%, its strongest gain since early-2007.
During the last ten
years there has been a 68% correlation between the y/y change in chain
store sales and the change in retail sales at general merchandise
stores.
 That correlation recently has increased.

The ICSC-Goldman
Sachs retail chain-store sales index is constructed using the
same-store sales (stores open for one year) reported by 78 stores of
seven retailers: Dayton Hudson, Federated, Kmart, May, J.C. Penney,
Sears and Wal-Mart.
 During the last ten years there has been a 69%
correlation between the year-to-year growth in chain store sales and
the growth in general merchandise retail sales. The weekly
figures are available in Haver's SURVEYW database.

Contrary to the trend in purchases, the leading indicator of
chain store sales slipped last week and was down slightly versus one
year ago. The composite leading economic indicator is compiled from
four series: (1) the MBA's volume index of mortgage applications for
home purchase (2) the ABC News/Money magazine's survey of consumer
buying conditions (3) new filings for jobless benefits and (4) the
30-year government bond yield.
Issues in Economic Development is
yesterday's speech by Fed Governor Elizabeth A. Duke and it can be
found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/duke20100419a.htm">here</a>.
<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/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">04/17/10</th>
<th scope="col">04/10/10</th>
<th scope="col">04/03/10</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">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>513.8</td>
<td>513.0</td>
<td>512.7</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Consumers still seem interested in spending money after being cooped up indoors this winter. As a result, chain store sales last week held onto the sharp gain early in the month and the y/y change remained at 4.6%, its strongest gain [...]

U.S. Weekly Chain Store Sales Hold On To Early-April Gain

US and China big leaders in adoption of AI models

Robust US demand for advanced technology products

China's export growth rotating away from the US

More pronounced upward revisions in countries more exposed to AI investment

Stable job openings and hiring rates point to cautious hiring

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

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

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

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

PMIs show still-elevated but slowing US inflation

AI boosting US investment in data centers

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

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

US financial markets have gotten used to elevated policy uncertainty

FOMC now expects more rate cuts going forward than in June

China gaining ASEAN exports while US exports slump

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

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

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

Equity market exuberance outpacing macroeconomic data

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

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 Global Monetary Policy Consensus**
The latest Blue Chip Financial Forecasts survey points to a notably more balanced global monetary policy outlook over the coming year. In contrast to the pronounced easing bias that dominated much of the past two years, expectations are now more symmetric, with a similar number of central banks projected to raise rates as to ease policy. Japan is seen delivering further tightening, while Canada is expected to initiate an interest rate hike in coming months. In Australia’s case, this tightening guidance was reinforced this week, with the Reserve Bank lifting its policy rate by 25 basis points. Elsewhere, and in contrast, the euro area, UK and US are expected to move in the opposite direction.

260205Z1.jpg

**US manufacturing activity**
The second chart underscores the recent improvement in US economic momentum, highlighted by an unexpected surge in the January ISM manufacturing PMI. After spending much of the past year hovering below the 50 threshold consistent with stagnation, the index jumped sharply back into expansionary territory, signalling a renewed pickup in industrial activity. This rebound has coincided with a broader run of stronger-than-anticipated US economic data, as reflected in the upswing in the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index. Together, these developments point to a US economy that continues to display notable resilience, complicating expectations of monetary easing in the near term.

260205Z2.jpg

**US Bank Lending Standards and Financial Stress** 
The next chart turns to US financial conditions, highlighting the latest readings from the Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey. The net proportion of banks tightening lending standards on corporate loans and mortgages is now more modest by historical standards, and well below the extremes seen during past episodes of financial stress. Some easing in credit headwinds has occurred alongside relatively subdued readings on the OFR Financial Stress Index, which continues to hover below its long-run average. Together, these indicators suggest that the US financial system has continued to avoid the kind of acute stress typically associated with sharp slowdowns in credit availability—helping to underpin the recent resilience in economic activity.

260205Z3.jpg

**Semiconductor Sales**
The fourth chart highlights the renewed surge in global semiconductor sales, with momentum strengthening sharply over recent months across the Americas, China and the broader Asia-Pacific region. After the cyclical downturn in 2022–23, sales have rebounded to fresh highs, reflecting a powerful revival in demand for advanced chips and related technologies. This upswing has taken place amid intense investor preoccupation with artificial intelligence, with expectations that AI adoption will drive a sustained wave of capital spending on data centres, cloud infrastructure and high-performance computing. In contrast, semiconductor sales in Europe remain comparatively subdued, reflecting the region’s smaller footprint in high-end chip manufacturing, weaker industrial demand, and the ongoing impact of slower economic growth. While semiconductors are inherently cyclical, markets have increasingly interpreted the current rebound elsewhere as structural rather than purely cyclical—underpinned by the belief that AI represents a transformative and durable source of demand growth.

260205Z4.jpg

**Large-Scale AI Models**
The next chart illustrates the rapid proliferation of large-scale AI models globally, with newly updated data for 2025 pointing to a further sharp acceleration in development activity. The United States continues to lead by a wide margin, while China has also seen a steep rise in model deployment in recent years, underscoring the intensifying technological competition between the two economies. Growth in the UK and other regions has been more modest by comparison, highlighting the increasingly concentrated nature of AI innovation. Taken together with the surge in semiconductor sales, these trends help explain the market’s strong preoccupation with AI as a potential driver of future productivity and investment cycles—although the geographic concentration of activity also raises questions about the uneven distribution of any resulting economic gains.

260205Z5.jpg

**An AI Bubble?** 
The final chart draws on the latest Blue Chip Financial Forecasts special questions, highlighting market participants’ perceptions of the economic gains likely to be delivered by artificial intelligence. While a sizeable share of respondents still believe that financial markets may be overestimating AI’s potential benefits, an increasing proportion now judge current expectations to be broadly accurate, with only a small minority viewing the gains as underestimated. Notably, this represents a softening in scepticism compared with the survey results from last month, when concerns about excessive market optimism were more pronounced. The shift suggests a growing acceptance that AI-related investment and innovation could translate into meaningful economic impacts—though uncertainty remains high around the scale, timing and distribution of these gains.

260205Z6.jpg

Financial markets have experienced renewed gyrations in recent weeks, as shifting geopolitical risks, questions around Federal Reserve independence, renewed talk of US dollar “debasement,” and ongoing enthusiasm surrounding artificial intelligence have combined to drive volatility across asset classes. These cross-currents have also contributed to a degree of rotation away from high-flying technology stocks, as investors reassess valuations and the timing of anticipated AI-driven gains. Against this backdrop, the charts in this week’s COTW highlight several important themes. Policy rate expectations now appear more balanced globally, marking a clear shift away from the one-sided easing bias of the past two years (chart 1), even as resilient US data—underscored by the unexpected jump in the January ISM index and a run of positive economic surprises—continues to complicate the outlook for monetary easing (chart 2). At the same time, US financial conditions remain relatively benign, with limited evidence of widespread credit stress or aggressive tightening in lending standards (chart 3). Meanwhile, the sharp rebound in semiconductor sales and the accelerating rollout of large-scale AI models underscore why investors remain so focused on the AI narrative, even as Europe lags behind due to weaker industrial momentum and a smaller footprint in advanced chip production (charts 4 and 5). Finally, while some scepticism about AI’s ultimate economic impact persists, the latest survey results suggest a moderation in concerns that markets are materially overestimating its gains (chart 6). Taken together, these developments paint a picture of a US economy that remains more resilient than many had anticipated, set against a financial landscape increasingly shaped by powerful—if sometimes competing—narratives around geopolitics, policy, and technological transformation.

Charts of the Week: Balanced Policy, Resilient Data and AI Narratives

260206E.jpg

With the December report, Germany’s production and some of the early European industrial production data reveal a good deal of chaos in terms of the embedded trends. On the month, German industrial production fell by 1.9%, with consumer goods output up by 0.5%, capital goods output falling by 5.3%, and intermediate goods output falling by 1.2%. Among the early reporters in the monetary union—France, Spain, and Portugal—only Spain showed an increase in manufacturing IP in December; however, Spanish industrial production is notoriously volatile.

**Broader IP trends in Germany and elsewhere in Europe**
As for other early industrial production reporters, both Sweden and Norway showed strong-to-solid gains in December and each of them showed two-months of gains in a row. Beyond that, sequential growth rates from 12-months to six-months to three-months show accelerating growth in German consumer goods output against decelerating growth for intermediate goods. Real manufacturing output and real sales show mixed results- no clear trends; however, real manufacturing orders in Germany are off the map strong. 

**German manufacturing/industrial Surveys**
German industrial surveys from the IFO for manufacturing shows persistent weakening as well as for IFO manufacturing expectations, and in the EU Commission industrial index in the last three months. More broadly, Germany shows some modest but ongoing step up all of these based on average levels from 12-months to six-months to three-months for IFO expectations and the EU Commission industrial readings with mixed results for other survey readings.

**IP trends in Europe**
For the early reporting EMU members France, Spain, and Portugal, who report industrial production trends, each show mixed monthly trends against ongoing decelerations for manufacturing output over the broader sequential periods (12-month, to 6-month, to 3-month). However, for other Europe, Sweden and Norway, manufacturing trends are steadily accelerating on this broader timeline.

**A feeling of ‘Deja- What?’**
These combinations of opposed trends mixed with a lack of trends leave us with this sense of confusion about what's going on in manufacturing. For Germany, the extreme strength in orders is reassuring since orders should be forward-looking rather than backward-looking or even contemporaneous. But orders can also be a fickle series and so we'll have to watch it to see if the trends for German orders hold up.

**Current quarter-What’s been happening now**
In addition, current quarter growth for Germany actually looks quite good with industrial production up 3.7% at an annual rate in the current quarter, led by output increases in manufacturing against a decline in the intermediate goods output. Real orders in the quarter are surging at a 44% growth rate, while real sales in manufacturing only had a 0.1% uptick at an annual rate. The industrial indicators for Germany in the quarter show weakness or flatness with the only exception being IFO manufacturing expectations that advanced by a small amount. The three EMU members who report industrial production data show positive growth in the just-completed quarter except for Portugal where industrial production is falling at a 2.9% rate in the fourth quarter. Sweden and Norway, European countries but not monetary union members, show a strong 22% annual rate gain in Sweden against the 3% annual rate decline in Norway.

260206.jpg

**Rankings**
**How growth rates stack up…**
Moving away from short-term trends, the rankings of growth rates of these various metrics using 12-month growth rates on data back to 2006, show below-median growth rates for German industrial production and all three of its major sectors. All of them have rankings below the 50% mark where the median resides. Germany’s manufacturing output growth rate is below its median as is the growth of real sales; and once again real manufacturing orders break out and show a stunning 90th percentile standing, extremely strong compared to other growth rates on this period.

**Indicator rankings are poor**
However, the survey based industrial indicators for Germany, ranked based on their index levels, are all extremely weak and much weaker than German sector or other German metrics. The strongest indicator reading is the 29th percentile standing for IFO manufacturing expectations while the current ZEW index, IFO manufacturing index, and the EU Commission industrial readings, all reside below their 15th percentile. The survey rankings suggest that industrial sentiment is in much worse shape than activity and growth.

**IP elsewhere in Europe**
However, the growth ranking of manufacturing industrial production for the reporting EMU members and other European members are all quite solid, with percentile standings ranging from the 66th up to the 93rd percentile.

**Summing up**
From these data, Germany emerges as the weak economy compared with historic norms based on industrial production growth and indicator readings. However, there's a glimpse of positivity from the growth of real orders, and at the same time, some concern about ongoing sentiment for manufacturing in Germany as distinct from actual performance.

Germany

German IP Reveals Chaotic Trends

Winnie Tapasanun

260205X15.jpg

260205Y15.jpg

**Total job openings** fell 5.6% m/m (-12.9% y/y) to 6.542 million in December after a downwardly revised 7.0% decline to 6.928 million in November (previously -4.1% m/m; 7.146 million), according to the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. December marked the third consecutive m/m fall and the lowest level since September 2020. The job openings rate declined to 3.9% in December, the lowest since April 2020, from 4.2% in November, remaining below a record-high 7.4% in March 2022. This rate is calculated as the ratio of job openings to total nonfarm employment plus openings. Significantly, the drop in job openings also lowered the **ratio of job openings to unemployed individuals** to 0.872 in December—the lowest since March 2021—from 0.890 in November, down from 1.085 in December 2024 and a pre-pandemic 1.211 in February 2020. A reading of 0.872 implies there were about 0.87 open jobs per unemployed person—indicating fewer openings than unemployed workers. December was the fifth time in six months that this ratio remained below 1.0.

**Private sector job openings** fell 6.8% (-12.5% y/y) to 5.804 million in December after a 6.6% fall to 6.227 million in November, registering the third successive m/m decline and the lowest level since September 2020. The private sector job openings rate fell to 4.1% in December, the lowest since April 2020, from 4.4% in November. The December m/m decline in private sector openings reflected drops of 27.7% (-36.9% y/y) in financial activities, 20.2% (-25.5% y/y) in professional & business services, 14.4% (-5.1% y/y) in trade, transportation & utilities, and 5.2% (-12.4% y/y) in private educational & health services. To the upside, private sector openings in the following categories rose m/m in December: other services (21.1%; 11.0% y/y), mining & lodging (17.6%; 0.0% y/y), information (13.5%; -4.7% y/y), manufacturing (8.5%; 0.5% y/y), leisure & hospitality (7.5%; -17.2% y/y), and construction (2.8%; 42.4% y/y). Meanwhile, government job openings rose 5.3% (-15.6% y/y) in December, the first m/m rise in three months, after a 10.6% drop in November.

**Total hiring** rebounded 3.4% (-1.5% y/y) to 5.293 million in December, the first m/m increase since September, following a 4.6% decrease to 5.121 million in November. The hiring rate edged up to 3.3% in December from 3.2% in November, though it remained below pre-pandemic levels. **Private sector hiring** rose 3.1% (-0.4% y/y) to 4.978 million in December, the third m/m rise in four months, after a 4.0% decline to 4.826 million in November. The private sector hiring rate rose to 3.7% in December from 3.5% in November, the same as in October and September. The December m/m increase in private sector hiring was led by a 32.1% jump (42.3% y/y) in information, followed by gains of 24.0% (-4.6% y/y) in financial activities, 23.5% (0.0% y/y) in mining & lodging, 6.5% (-4.8% y/y) in private educational & health services, 4.2% (-4.9% y/y) in trade, transportation & utilities, 3.6% (6.1% y/y) in construction, 3.4% (7.9% y/y) in leisure & hospitality, and 1.8% (-4.3% y/y) in manufacturing. To the downside, private sector hiring in professional & business services (-5.2%; +0.5% y/y) and other services (-4.3%; -16.5% y/y) declined m/m in December. Meanwhile, government hiring rebounded 6.4% (-16.3% y/y) in December, the first m/m rise since September, following a 13.5% drop in November.

**Total separations** rose 2.1% (3.3% y/y) to 5.251 million in December after a 1.5% rise to 5.144 million in November, marking the third m/m increase in four months and the highest level since September. The total separations rate edged up to 3.3% after holding at 3.2% in November and October. Private sector separations rose 1.6% (4.2% y/y) to 4.932 million in December, the highest level since June, while government sector separations jumped 10.4% (-9.1% y/y) to 319,000 following two consecutive m/m declines. **Total quits** (voluntary separations initiated by the employee) increased 0.3% (3.5% y/y) to 3.204 million in December, the third m/m rise in four months and the highest level since June, after a 7.4% rebound in November. The quits rate (a measure of workers’ willingness or ability to leave jobs) held at 2.0% in December and November, slightly below 2.3% in February 2020. Private sector quits eased 0.2% (+4.5% y/y) following an 8.4% November rebound. **Layoffs and discharges** (involuntary separations initiated by the employer) increased 3.6% (5.6% y/y) to 1.762 million in December, up for the third time in four months, after an 8.1% drop in November. The layoffs & discharges rate remained at 1.1% in December and November, marginally below 1.3% in February 2020. Private sector layoffs grew 4.3% (7.8% y/y) following a 7.3% November decrease.

The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data are available in Haver’s **USECON** database.

260205C15.jpg

260205D15.jpg

- Job openings down 5.6% (-12.9% y/y) to 6.542 mil., third straight m/m decline.
- Hiring up 3.4% (-1.5% y/y) to 5.293 mil., first m/m increase since September.
- Separations rise to a three-month high; quits reach a six-month high; layoffs rebound.

U.S. JOLTS: Openings Drop to Lowest Level Since Sept. ’20; Hiring Rebounds in December

Sandy Batten

260205A2.jpg

260205B2.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance jumped 22,000 to 231,000 in the week ended January 31 following an unrevised 209,000 in the prior week. The four-week average rose to 212,250 from 206,250. The Action Economics Forecast Survey looked for 213,000 claims to have been filed. Winter Storm Fern and the accompanying very cold temperatures could have provided a temporary boost. Historically speaking, claims remain at low levels.

The total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries—also known as “continuing claims”—increased by 25,000 to 1.844 million in the week ending January 24, from a downwardly revised 1.819 million in the prior week (previously 1.827 million). The insured unemployment rate remained at 1.2% in the week of January 24, unchanged from the previous eight weeks.

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ending January 17, the highest unemployment rates were in Rhode Island (2.83%), New Jersey (2.77%), Massachusetts (2.67%), Washington (2.54%), and Minnesota (2.45%). The lowest rates were in Florida (0.30%), North Carolina (0.42%), Louisiana (0.43%), Alabama (0.46%), and Arkansas (0.47). Rates in other notable states include Illinois (2.15%), California, (2.08%), New York (2.02%), Pennsylvania (1.91%), and Texas (1.09%). 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.

260205C2.jpg

260205D2.jpg

- New claims jumped 22,000 to 231,000, the highest level since December 6.
- Continuing claims rose to 1.844 million from 1.819 million.

U.S. Initial Unemployment Claims Surged in Latest Week

260205E.jpg

German real orders in December adjusted for inflation rose strongly again, gaining 7.8% month-to-month after rising 5.7% month-to-month in November. Foreign orders were up by 5.6% in December compared to 5.2% in November. Domestic orders surged by 10.7% in December after rising 6.4% in November and 10% in October.

**Real sales**
Real sales were mixed in December with overall sales falling 1.4% month-to-month mostly on weakness in capital goods sales.

**Broad categorical acceleration**
Many flows are accelerating this month. Sequential growth rates show acceleration. Total real orders accelerate from a year ago, to the current year, to six-months, and to three-months. Sales growth rates for consumer goods, consumer nondurables, and intermediate goods all show accelerations in gear. The exceptions are foreign orders that are not as strong over six months compared to their 12-month growth. And on the sales side, consumer durables sales and capital goods sales are weak.

**Quarter-to-quarter**
Quarterly annualized growth is complete for Q4 with this report. Foreign orders are the ‘weak flow’ expanding at a 13.6% annual rate – certainly not a weak growth rate. But domestic real orders are up at an astounding 101.9% annual rate. The net impact on the total real orders growth is to lift it to a pace of 44.1%. 

**Order ranking is very strong**
The table provides two rankings: one based on the level of variables and the other based on its year-on-year growth. The rankings this month for real orders overall, foreign, and domestic orders all reside in their top 80th to 90th percentiles- extremely strong based on level or growth. Sales do not follow suit. This gives us some reason to suspect that there is some lumpiness involved in the manufacturing data as distinct from strength. That will be something to watch. Overall mining and manufacturing sales growth is essentially at its historic median at a rank of 49.8. However, capital goods, intermediate goods and manufacturing sales all have rankings at or above their medians - as high as a 61-percentile standing for capital goods.

**Industrial confidence**
Industrial confidence for Germany, France, Italy and Spain (the EU’s big-four economies) show rankings based on these survey levels that are much lower at the 11th percentile for Germany, the 42nd and 36th percentiles, for France and Italy, respectively. Spain scores better with a 61.8 percentile standing on its industrial confidence measure. 

On balance, there is now an accelerating profile that is broad in sales trends and especially strong order trends. Perhaps Europe, under the pressure to stimulate its miliary capabilities, has a core of demand to help drive output ahead more consistently. This is something to watch in the coming months.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

U.S. Unemployment Insurance Claims Fall, Reversing Earlier Gains

U.S. PPI Firms; Core Prices Remain Soft

U.S. PPI Firms; Core Prices RemainSoft

U.S. PPI Firms; Core Prices Remain Soft

UK Claimant Count Turns Lower Amid Reports With Conflicting Signals

UK Claimant Count Turns Lower AmidReports With Conflicting Signals

German Investors Upbeat On Economic Prospects 6 Months Ahead

U.S. Weekly Chain Store Sales Hold On To Early-April Gain