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/100223g.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
German business confidence, which had been improving since
March 2009, declined slightly in February. On a percent balance
measure, which subtracts the percentage of respondents who are negative
from those who are positive, confidence among German entrepreneurs fell
to -10.3% from -9.0%. The climate measure is a combination of the
business opinions regarding current conditions and expectations for the
next six months.. The percent balance of business opinion on current
conditions fell to -23.8% in February from -21.0% in January. Much of
the decline can probably be attributed to the weather. Heavy snow fall
and cold temperatures were particularly bad for construction and the
distributive trades, both wholesale and retail.
In spite of the fact
that the pessimists have exceeded the optimists regarding current
conditions by more than 20% over the past several months, the
proportion of German entrepreneurs who expect better condition six
months ahead has been increasing. In December there was a slight excess
of optimists over pessimists of 0.3%. In February the percent balance
on expectations increased to 4.2% from 3.8% in January.The increase
in the proportion of business people who expect better conditions is in
sharp contrast to the declines in the proportion of financial people
who expect better conditions as revealed last Week in the ZEW survey.
Not only do the business and financial communities sometimes differ in
their appraisals of the future, but, they apparently differ in
temperament, as shown in the attached chart which compares the percent
balances on expectations of the two surveys. The financial community
appears to have a positive bias and to have wide mood swings while the
business community tends to have a negative bias and more restrained
mood swings. In statistical terms--over entire history of each of the
two series--the mean of the ZEW series is 27.1% and its standard
deviation, 40.6%; the mean of the IFO series is -5.2% and its standard
deviation, 10.6%

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">GERMANY</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 10&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 10&nbsp;</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>
<th scope="col">Low</th>
<th scope="col">Date</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">IFO:&nbsp;&nbsp;
Climate (% Bal.)</td>
<td>-10.3</td>
<td>-9.0</td>
<td>-16.5</td>
<td>-12.9</td>
<td>-16.5</td>
<td>-17.8</td>
<td>-36.0</td>
<td>Mar 09</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Current Conditions (% Bal.)</td>
<td>-23.8</td>
<td>-21.0</td>
<td>-22.5</td>
<td>-24.9</td>
<td>-28.4</td>
<td>-29.0</td>
<td>-38.1</td>
<td>Jun 09</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Expectations
(% Bal.)</td>
<td>4.2</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>-3.9</td>
<td>-5.9</td>
<td>-44.8</td>
<td>Dec 08</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">ZEW: Expectations
(% Bal.)</td>
<td>45.1</td>
<td>47.2</td>
<td>50.4</td>
<td>51.1</td>
<td>56.0</td>
<td>57.7</td>
<td>-63.0</td>
<td>Oct 08</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

German business confidence, which had been improving since March 2009, declined slightly in February. On a percent balance measure, which subtracts the percentage of respondents who are negative from those who are positive, confidence [...]

Confidence Among German Industrialists Slips A Bit In February

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/100223f.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
Consumer spending has yet to show real spark. Weekly chain
store sales improved by 2.3% last week but for the month so far sales
remained down slightly from the January average. Sales also remained
down 1.6% from last summer's high.
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.

Also treading water has been the leading indicator of chain
store sales. It's been roughly unchanged since early-January and flat
for the last year. This 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.
<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" style="color: white;">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">02/20/10</th>
<th scope="col">02/13/10</th>
<th scope="col">02/06/10</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>490.4</td>
<td>479.5</td>
<td>487.1</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Consumer spending has yet to show real spark. Weekly chain store sales improved by 2.3% last week but for the month so far sales remained down slightly from the January average. Sales also remained down 1.6% from last summer's high. [...]

U.S. Weekly Chain Store Sales Look Lifeless

<!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/100223d.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">Continuing
to move generally in a sideways pattern, the pump price for
regular gasoline rose last week to $2.66. Nevertheless,
prices remained up by more than one-third from last year. Yesterday,
the spot market price for a gallon of regular gasoline rose to its
highest level since January. The figures are reported by the U.S.
Department of Energy and can be found in Haver's WEEKLY
&amp; DAILY databases.
 The price for a barrel of light
sweet crude (WTI) oil recovered prior weakness and rose last week to
$78.30. Nevertheless, it was down from the early-January high of
$82.59. Yesterday, the spot price was up further to $80.16. <img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100223e.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">
Prices have
risen from $71.53 early this past December and are more than double the
December 2008 low of $32.37.Demand for gasoline fell 3.0% last week
versus one year ago. That decline compared to a 3.9% increase at the
beginning of October. Breaking away from earlier y/y strength, the
demand for residual fuel oil fell 3.7% y/y. Distillate demand fell
12.3% y/y, a decline more moderate than the 21.6% y/y shortfall at the
beginning of last July. Inventories of crude oil and petroleum products
slipped in February but were up 0.7% from one year ago.
 U.S. natural
gas prices have been roughly flat this year as temperatures have been
volatile. They fell to an average $5.40 per mmbtu (+25.21% y/y) from
the high of $6.50 early in January. Nevertheless they remained double
the September low.The energy price data can be found in Haver's WEEKLY
database while the daily figures are in DAILY.
The gasoline demand figures are in OILWKLY.&nbsp;
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a ;="" href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W4/@W4.HTM" style="color: white;">Weekly Prices</a></th>
<th scope="col">02/22/10</th>
<th scope="col">02/15/10</th>
<th scope="col">02/08/10</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2009</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retail Regular Gasoline ($ per
Gallon, Regular)</td>
<td>2.66</td>
<td>2.61</td>
<td>2.65</td>
<td>39.1%</td>
<td>2.35</td>
<td>3.25</td>
<td>2.80</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Light Sweet Crude Oil,
WTI&nbsp; ($ per bbl.)</td>
<td>78.30</td>
<td>73.91</td>
<td>74.59</td>
<td>111.7%</td>
<td>61.39</td>
<td>100.16</td>
<td>72.25</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

</body></html>

Continuing to move generally in a sideways pattern, the pump price for regular gasoline rose last week to $2.66. Nevertheless, prices remained up by more than one-third from last year. Yesterday, the spot market price for a gallon of [...]

U.S. Weekly Gasoline Prices Recover Somewhat

<!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/100223a.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">Ever-so-slightly,
home prices are rising m/m and the annual decline has
eased. The December S&amp;P/Case Shiller Home Price Index edged up
another 0.3% and they have risen 3.6% from the May low. That
improvement pared the 12-month price decline to 3.1% from its worst of
-19.0% last January. For 2009 as a whole, prices fell 13.3% and they
have fallen 29.4% from the early-2006 peak.&nbsp;
The narrower 10 City
Composite Index also gained 0.3% following three months of 0.2%
increase. As a result, the 12-month decline eased to -2.4% from -19.4%
at its worst. These negative comparisons by far outpace those during
the 1990-91 recession when home prices fell 6.3%.
 The performance of
home prices has been quite varied around the country. During December,
price gains near or above 1.0% were logged in Boston, Las Vegas, San
Diego, San Francisco and Phoenix but prices still fell in Chicago,
Miami, New York, Cleveland, and Tampa.
The Case Shiller home price
series are value-weighted, i.e., a greater index weight is assigned to
more expensive homes. The S&amp;P/Case-Shiller home price series
can be found in Haver's USECON database and the
city data highlighted below is in the REGIONAL
database.
Mortgage
Choice and the Pricing of Fixed-Rate and
Adjustable-Rate Mortgages from the Federal Reserve Bank of
San Francisco is available here <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-03.html">here</a>.
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100223b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100223c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">S&amp;P/Case-Shiller
Home Price Index (SA, Jan 00 = 100)</th>
<th scope="col">December m/m</th>
<th scope="col">November m/m</th>
<th scope="col">October&nbsp;&nbsp;
m/m</th>
<th scope="col">Dec. y/y</th>
<th scope="col">2009</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">20 City Composite Index</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-3.1%</td>
<td>-13.3%</td>
<td>-15.7%</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">&nbsp; Regional
Indicators</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Atlanta</td>
<td>-0.0</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>-3.9</td>
<td>-11.6</td>
<td>-8.5</td>
<td>0.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Boston</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>-4.9</td>
<td>-5.7</td>
<td>-4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Chicago</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>-1.1</td>
<td>-7.2</td>
<td>-14.2</td>
<td>-10.0</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Dallas</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>-2.3</td>
<td>-3.2</td>
<td>0.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Denver</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
<td>-4.9</td>
<td>-1.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Los Angeles</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-15.4</td>
<td>-24.2</td>
<td>-5.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
New York</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>-6.3</td>
<td>-9.8</td>
<td>-7.4</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
San Francisco</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>-18.4</td>
<td>-24.3</td>
<td>-4.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

</body></html>

Ever-so-slightly, home prices are rising m/m and the annual decline has eased. The December S&P/Case Shiller Home Price Index edged up another 0.3% and they have risen 3.6% from the May low. That improvement pared the 12-month price [...]

U.S. Weekly Gasoline PricesRecover Somewhat

<!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/100223a.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">Ever-so-slightly,
home prices are rising m/m and the annual decline has
eased. The December S&amp;P/Case Shiller Home Price Index edged up
another 0.3% and they have risen 3.6% from the May low. That
improvement pared the 12-month price decline to 3.1% from its worst of
-19.0% last January. For 2009 as a whole, prices fell 13.3% and they
have fallen 29.4% from the early-2006 peak.&nbsp;
The narrower 10 City
Composite Index also gained 0.3% following three months of 0.2%
increase. As a result, the 12-month decline eased to -2.4% from -19.4%
at its worst. These negative comparisons by far outpace those during
the 1990-91 recession when home prices fell 6.3%.
 The performance of
home prices has been quite varied around the country. During December,
price gains near or above 1.0% were logged in Boston, Las Vegas, San
Diego, San Francisco and Phoenix but prices still fell in Chicago,
Miami, New York, Cleveland, and Tampa.
The Case Shiller home price
series are value-weighted, i.e., a greater index weight is assigned to
more expensive homes. The S&amp;P/Case-Shiller home price series
can be found in Haver's USECON database and the
city data highlighted below is in the REGIONAL
database.
Mortgage
Choice and the Pricing of Fixed-Rate and
Adjustable-Rate Mortgages from the Federal Reserve Bank of
San Francisco is available here <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-03.html">here</a>.
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100223b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100223c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">S&amp;P/Case-Shiller
Home Price Index (SA, Jan 00 = 100)</th>
<th scope="col">December m/m</th>
<th scope="col">November m/m</th>
<th scope="col">October&nbsp;&nbsp;
m/m</th>
<th scope="col">Dec. y/y</th>
<th scope="col">2009</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">20 City Composite Index</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-3.1%</td>
<td>-13.3%</td>
<td>-15.7%</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">&nbsp; Regional
Indicators</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Atlanta</td>
<td>-0.0</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>-3.9</td>
<td>-11.6</td>
<td>-8.5</td>
<td>0.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Boston</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>-4.9</td>
<td>-5.7</td>
<td>-4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Chicago</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>-1.1</td>
<td>-7.2</td>
<td>-14.2</td>
<td>-10.0</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Dallas</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>-2.3</td>
<td>-3.2</td>
<td>0.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Denver</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
<td>-4.9</td>
<td>-1.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Los Angeles</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-15.4</td>
<td>-24.2</td>
<td>-5.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
New York</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>-6.3</td>
<td>-9.8</td>
<td>-7.4</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
San Francisco</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>-18.4</td>
<td>-24.3</td>
<td>-4.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

U.S. Weekly Gasoline Prices
Recover Somewhat 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> February 23, 2010



<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100223d.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">Continuing
to move generally in a sideways pattern, the pump price for
regular gasoline rose last week to $2.66. Nevertheless,
prices remained up by more than one-third from last year. Yesterday,
the spot market price for a gallon of regular gasoline rose to its
highest level since January. The figures are reported by the U.S.
Department of Energy and can be found in Haver's WEEKLY
&amp; DAILY databases.
 The price for a barrel of light
sweet crude (WTI) oil recovered prior weakness and rose last week to
$78.30. Nevertheless, it was down from the early-January high of
$82.59. Yesterday, the spot price was up further to $80.16. <img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100223e.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">
Prices have
risen from $71.53 early this past December and are more than double the
December 2008 low of $32.37.
Demand for gasoline fell 3.0% last week
versus one year ago. That decline compared to a 3.9% increase at the
beginning of October. Breaking away from earlier y/y strength, the
demand for residual fuel oil fell 3.7% y/y. Distillate demand fell
12.3% y/y, a decline more moderate than the 21.6% y/y shortfall at the
beginning of last July. Inventories of crude oil and petroleum products
slipped in February but were up 0.7% from one year ago.
 U.S. natural
gas prices have been roughly flat this year as temperatures have been
volatile. They fell to an average $5.40 per mmbtu (+25.21% y/y) from
the high of $6.50 early in January. Nevertheless they remained double
the September low.
The energy price data can be found in Haver's WEEKLY
database while the daily figures are in DAILY.
The gasoline demand figures are in OILWKLY.&nbsp;
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a ;="" href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W4/@W4.HTM" style="color: white;">Weekly Prices</a></th>
<th scope="col">02/22/10</th>
<th scope="col">02/15/10</th>
<th scope="col">02/08/10</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2009</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retail Regular Gasoline ($ per
Gallon, Regular)</td>
<td>2.66</td>
<td>2.61</td>
<td>2.65</td>
<td>39.1%</td>
<td>2.35</td>
<td>3.25</td>
<td>2.80</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Light Sweet Crude Oil,
WTI&nbsp; ($ per bbl.)</td>
<td>78.30</td>
<td>73.91</td>
<td>74.59</td>
<td>111.7%</td>
<td>61.39</td>
<td>100.16</td>
<td>72.25</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

U.S. Weekly Chain Store Sales Look
Lifeless 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> February 23, 2010


<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100223f.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
Consumer spending has yet to show real spark. Weekly chain
store sales improved by 2.3% last week but for the month so far sales
remained down slightly from the January average. Sales also remained
down 1.6% from last summer's high.
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.

Also treading water has been the leading indicator of chain
store sales. It's been roughly unchanged since early-January and flat
for the last year. This 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.
<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" style="color: white;">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">02/20/10</th>
<th scope="col">02/13/10</th>
<th scope="col">02/06/10</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>490.4</td>
<td>479.5</td>
<td>487.1</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Confidence Among German
Industrialists Slips A Bit In February 
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise
Curley</a> February 23, 2010


<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100223g.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
German business confidence, which had been improving since
March 2009, declined slightly in February. On a percent balance
measure, which subtracts the percentage of respondents who are negative
from those who are positive, confidence among German entrepreneurs fell
to -10.3% from -9.0%. The climate measure is a combination of the
business opinions regarding current conditions and expectations for the
next six months.. The percent balance of business opinion on current
conditions fell to -23.8% in February from -21.0% in January. Much of
the decline can probably be attributed to the weather. Heavy snow fall
and cold temperatures were particularly bad for construction and the
distributive trades, both wholesale and retail.
In spite of the fact
that the pessimists have exceeded the optimists regarding current
conditions by more than 20% over the past several months, the
proportion of German entrepreneurs who expect better condition six
months ahead has been increasing. In December there was a slight excess
of optimists over pessimists of 0.3%. In February the percent balance
on expectations increased to 4.2% from 3.8% in January.
The increase
in the proportion of business people who expect better conditions is in
sharp contrast to the declines in the proportion of financial people
who expect better conditions as revealed last Week in the ZEW survey.
Not only do the business and financial communities sometimes differ in
their appraisals of the future, but, they apparently differ in
temperament, as shown in the attached chart which compares the percent
balances on expectations of the two surveys. The financial community
appears to have a positive bias and to have wide mood swings while the
business community tends to have a negative bias and more restrained
mood swings. In statistical terms--over entire history of each of the
two series--the mean of the ZEW series is 27.1% and its standard
deviation, 40.6%; the mean of the IFO series is -5.2% and its standard
deviation, 10.6%

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">GERMANY</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 10&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 10&nbsp;</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>
<th scope="col">Low</th>
<th scope="col">Date</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">IFO:&nbsp;&nbsp;
Climate (% Bal.)</td>
<td>-10.3</td>
<td>-9.0</td>
<td>-16.5</td>
<td>-12.9</td>
<td>-16.5</td>
<td>-17.8</td>
<td>-36.0</td>
<td>Mar 09</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Current Conditions (% Bal.)</td>
<td>-23.8</td>
<td>-21.0</td>
<td>-22.5</td>
<td>-24.9</td>
<td>-28.4</td>
<td>-29.0</td>
<td>-38.1</td>
<td>Jun 09</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Expectations
(% Bal.)</td>
<td>4.2</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>-3.9</td>
<td>-5.9</td>
<td>-44.8</td>
<td>Dec 08</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">ZEW: Expectations
(% Bal.)</td>
<td>45.1</td>
<td>47.2</td>
<td>50.4</td>
<td>51.1</td>
<td>56.0</td>
<td>57.7</td>
<td>-63.0</td>
<td>Oct 08</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Consumer Confidence Falls
Sharply 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> February 23, 2010



<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100223h.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">There
was a
slowing of retail sales during December and January. More weakness may
be in the offing given the latest souring of consumers' mood. For
February, the Conference Board reported that consumer confidence fell
18.6% from January and that brought down the level of confidence to its
lowest since last April. Just a modest m/m decline had been the
Consensus expectation for February and during the last ten years there
has been an 83% correlation between the level of consumer confidence
and the y/y change in real consumer spending. The Conference Board data
can be found in Haver's CBDB database.
Consumers'
assessment of current economic conditions slumped by nearly one-quarter
m/m. That reversed all of a January increase and left the measure near
the historic low. Jobs were seen as hard to get by 47.7% of respondents
and jobs were seen as plentiful by only 3.6%. That was up just slightly
from the series' historic low. Also at a record low was the percentage
of respondents who saw business conditions as good. The percentage of
consumers who thought business conditions were bad rose to 46.3%, off
somewhat from its peak but nearly the highest since 1983.&nbsp;
The expectations component of confidence also fell sharply to
its
lowest level since April. Lessened expectations for business
conditions, employment and income have led the latest downdraft.
Expectations for the inflation rate in twelve months held stable at
5.2%, the lowest level since 2007 and down from last year's high of
7.7%. Interest rates in twelve months were expected to be higher by
52.2% of respondents while 14.2% expected rates to fall. A greatly
lessened 28.6% of respondents expected stock prices to rise.
&nbsp;
An improved 2.7% of those surveyed plan to buy a home
during the next six months. An increased 27.1% plan to buy a major
appliance versus 30.9% back in 2007. Only 4.8% plan to buy an
automobile versus 6.0% in 2007 and just 1.8% plan to buy a new
one.&nbsp;&nbsp;
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100223i.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100223j.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Conference
Board&nbsp;(SA, 1985=100)</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2009</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer
Confidence Index</td>
<td>46.0</td>
<td>56.5</td>
<td>53.6</td>
<td>81.8</td>
<td>45.2</td>
<td>57.9</td>
<td>103.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Present Situation</td>
<td>19.4</td>
<td>25.2</td>
<td>20.2</td>
<td>-13.0</td>
<td>24.0</td>
<td>69.9</td>
<td>128.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Expectations</td>
<td>63.8</td>
<td>77.3</td>
<td>75.9</td>
<td>133.7</td>
<td>59.3</td>
<td>50.0</td>
<td>86.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

</body></html>

U.S. Weekly Gasoline PricesRecoverSomewhat

<!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/100222e.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">Taiwan
and
Thailand released fourth quarter Gross Domestic Product data this
morning.&nbsp; Taiwan is a small highly industrialized island
nation of about 7 million people with a per capita income of $16,428 in
2009 .&nbsp; Thailand, by contrast, is a large continental nation
of some 23 million people with a per capital income of $4,108 in
2008.&nbsp;&nbsp; Taiwan reported a fourth quarter increase of
4.23% and Thailand one of 3.6%.
In Taiwan, although the rate of
increase in the exports of good and service declined from 7.92% in the
third quarter, it was still a respectable 6.08%.&nbsp; Private
consumption, however, increased by 4.52% in the fourth quarter,
compared with 0.77% in the third quarter.&nbsp; Fixed capital
formation was up by 10.04% and inventory liquidation was sharply lower.
Inventories have been cut back aggressively since the beginning of
2009.&nbsp; From declines 52,762, 29,881 and 75,142million 2006 NT$
in the third, second and first quarters of 2009 respectively, the
fourth quarter saw a decline of only 2,555 million 2006 NT$.
In
Thailand, exports of goods and service increased 7.69% in the fourth
quarter, compared with 2.39% in the third quarter.&nbsp; Private
consumption also accelerated, from 1.78% to 2.97%.&nbsp; Fixed
investment, however, was 1.66% lower in the fourth quarter than in the
third quarter and inventories were increased by 1,806 million '88 Bahts
The inventory accumulation in the fourth quarter followed three
previous quarters of liquidation.&nbsp; 17,367 mil 88 bahts in the
third quarter, 910 in the second and 74,368 in the first quarter of
2009.
Quarterly changes in the major components of GDP for the two
countries are shown in the accompanying charts and in the table
below.&nbsp; Additional data for Taiwan and Thailand can be found
in the Haver Data Base:&nbsp; EMERGEPR
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100222f.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100222g.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Q/Q
Percent Changes (ex where noted)</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 09&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 09</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 09</th>
<th scope="col">Q1 09</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 08</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 08</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 08</th>
<th scope="col">Q1 08</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">GDP:&nbsp;
Taiwan</td>
<td>4.23</td>
<td>2.45</td>
<td>4.25</td>
<td>-2.55</td>
<td>-3.62</td>
<td>-3.62</td>
<td>-0.33</td>
<td>1.26</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Thailand</td>
<td>3.63</td>
<td>1.68</td>
<td>2.03</td>
<td>-1.45</td>
<td>-5.04</td>
<td>-0.49</td>
<td>-0.22</td>
<td>1.70</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Private
Consumption:&nbsp; Taiwan</td>
<td>4.52</td>
<td>0.77</td>
<td>0.65</td>
<td>0.39</td>
<td>0.38</td>
<td>-1.192</td>
<td>-0.78</td>
<td>0.30</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Thailand</td>
<td>2.97</td>
<td>1.78</td>
<td>0.17</td>
<td>-3.43</td>
<td>0.25</td>
<td>0.87</td>
<td>-0.13</td>
<td>1.11</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Fixed Capital
Formation:&nbsp; Taiwan</td>
<td>10.07</td>
<td>7.68</td>
<td>22.38</td>
<td>-30.52</td>
<td>-10.46</td>
<td>-2.31</td>
<td>-8.93</td>
<td>-7.20</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Thailand</td>
<td>-1.66</td>
<td>5.81</td>
<td>5.04</td>
<td>-11.68</td>
<td>-4.53</td>
<td>1.37</td>
<td>-1.59</td>
<td>-0.34</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Exports of Gds
&amp; Serv:&nbsp; Taiwan</td>
<td>6.08</td>
<td>7.92</td>
<td>12.20</td>
<td>-7.32</td>
<td>-17.35</td>
<td>-2.45</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>2.62</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Thailand</td>
<td>7.69</td>
<td>2.39</td>
<td>-3.40</td>
<td>-6.66</td>
<td>-11.90</td>
<td>-1.33</td>
<td>2.52</td>
<td>1.96</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Chg in
Inventories: Taiwan (Mil 2006NT$)</td>
<td>-2555</td>
<td>-52762</td>
<td>-29882</td>
<td>-75142</td>
<td>37228</td>
<td>42424</td>
<td>25900</td>
<td>46269</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Thailand
(mil 1988Bahts)</td>
<td>1806</td>
<td>-17367</td>
<td>-910</td>
<td>-74368</td>
<td>21240</td>
<td>30930</td>
<td>-106</td>
<td>6497</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</body></html>

Taiwan and Thailand released fourth quarter Gross Domestic Product data this morning. Taiwan is a small highly industrialized island nation of about 7 million people with a per capita income of $16,428 in 2009 . Thailand, by contrast, [...]

Taiwan And Thailand Report Q4 09 GDP Growth

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/100222d.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left">
Germany no longer seems to be locked in to the wining
trajectory that leads the e-Zone. France and Italy each have stronger
orders growth than Germany Yr/Yr. Among the four largest EU nations
Germany alone is the one with declining orders growth over the most
recent three months on order declines in December and in October.
The UK shook off a steep decline in orders in November; that
drop unwound a huge spike in orders in October. UK data have become
extremely volatile. December has brought another outsized gain in
orders this time of 8.5%. Despite some major league see-sawing the UK
orders series appears to be in the same sort of rebound as Germany
Italy and France.
The clear message from the chart above is that despite some
period-to-period volatility in orders an upswing is still in train.
Orders are climbing up out of the hole they were dug into during the
recession. In November the large three EMU countries each had Yr/Yr
declines in orders but in December orders in Italy, France and Germany
all are in the plus column again for Yr/Yr growth.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr><th colspan="10" scope="col">Selected Euro-Area and UK Industrial Orders </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Saar except m/m</td>
<td colspan="3">Mo/Mo</td>
<td>Dec 09</td>
<td>Nov 09</td>
<td>Dec 09</td>
<td>Nov 09</td>
<td>Dec 09</td>
<td>Nov 09</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Countries:</td>
<td>Dec 09</td>
<td>Nov 09</td>
<td>Oct 09</td>
<td>3Mo</td>
<td>3Mo</td>
<td>6mo</td>
<td>6mo</td>
<td>12mo</td>
<td>12mo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany
(MFG):</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
<td>-3.4%</td>
<td>9.9%</td>
<td>10.3%</td>
<td>23.7%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">France(Ind):</td>
<td>17.1%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-8.2%</td>
<td>36.4%</td>
<td>-7.3%</td>
<td>40.5%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>15.5%</td>
<td>-4.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy
(Ind):</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>38.5%</td>
<td>47.6%</td>
<td>18.5%</td>
<td>15.4%</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
<td>-3.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">UK
(Engineering Industy):</td>
<td>8.5%</td>
<td>-15.6%</td>
<td>14.1%</td>
<td>19.1%</td>
<td>-18.1%</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>-9.9%</td>
<td>-16.2%</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Germany no longer seems to be locked in to the wining trajectory that leads the e-Zone. France and Italy each have stronger orders growth than Germany Yr/Yr. Among the four largest EU nations Germany alone is the one with declining [...]

Large EU Country Orders Go Back On The Rise…Mostly

<!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/100222a.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">The U.S.
economy regained forward momentum last month. The January Chicago Fed
National Activity Index (CFNAI) from the Federal Reserve Bank of
Chicago rose to a reading of 0.02 from a little-revised -0.58 in
December. Also pointing toward positive economic growth was the rise
from the series' low of -4.14 reached one year ago. During the last ten
years the has been a 76% correlation between the index level and the
q/q change in real GDP.The three-month moving average of the
index, which smoothes out some of the series' volatility, also rose to
its highest level since 2007. An index level at or below
-0.70 typically has indicated negative U.S. economic growth. A zero
value of the CFNAI indicates that the economy is expanding at its
historical trend rate of growth of roughly 3.0%. The complete CFNAI
report is available <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/cfnai/2010/cfnai_february2010.pdf">here</a>.The Chicago Fed indicated that the production &amp; income series
made the largest positive contribution to the series improvement in
January. Overall, 50 of the 85 individual indicators made positive
contributions to the index while 35 made negative contributions. The
CFNAI is a weighted average of 85 indicators of economic activity. The
indicators reflect activity in the following categories: production
&amp; income, the labor market, personal consumption &amp;
housing, manufacturing &amp; trade sales, and inventories &amp;
orders.· In a separate survey, the Chicago Fed indicated that its
Midwest manufacturing index slipped during December but remained close
to its highest level of the year. Indicators for the auto, steel,
machinery and resource sectors were roughly unchanged. The Chicago
Federal Reserve figures are available in Haver's SURVEYS database.&nbsp;The Challenges Ahead is the title of N.Y.
Federal Reserve Bank President William C. Dudley's comments and they
are available&nbsp; <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2010/dud100219.html">here</a>.&nbsp;
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100222b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100222c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a ;="" href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S5/@S503/@S503.HTM" style="color: white;">Chicago Fed</a></th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">November</th>
<th scope="col">2009</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">CFNAI</td>
<td>0.02</td>
<td>-0.58</td>
<td>0.06</td>
<td>-1.64</td>
<td>-1.79</td>
<td>-0.35</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; 3-Month Moving
Average</td>
<td>-0.16</td>
<td>-0.47</td>
<td>-0.59</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Personal Consumption &amp; Housing&nbsp;</td>
<td>-0.45</td>
<td>-0.49</td>
<td>-0.42</td>
<td>-0.49</td>
<td>-0.32</td>
<td>-0.09</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Employment, Unemployment &amp; Hours</td>
<td>-0.01</td>
<td>-0.26</td>
<td>0.12</td>
<td>-0.76</td>
<td>-0.67</td>
<td>-0.15</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Production &amp; Income</td>
<td>0.45</td>
<td>0.14</td>
<td>0.25</td>
<td>-0.23</td>
<td>-0.56</td>
<td>-0.05</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Sales, Inventories &amp; Orders</td>
<td>0.04</td>
<td>0.03</td>
<td>0.11</td>
<td>-0.15</td>
<td>-0.25</td>
<td>-0.06</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The U.S. economy regained forward momentum last month. The January Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago rose to a reading of 0.02 from a little-revised -0.58 in December. Also pointing [...]

Chicago Fed Index Increases To Nearly Highest Since 2007

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

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.

260112T6.jpg

Asia

Economic Letter from Asia: A Bumpy Start

Michael J. Moran

260109A.jpg

260109B.jpg

Nonfarm payrolls rose 50,000 in December, continuing a pattern of modest increases that began in early 2025 and intensified last spring. The December results were constrained by an outright decline in the goods-producing sector, with both construction companies and manufacturers shedding workers. The private service sector was in the plus column, but the gain of 58,000 was not especially impressive. The retail trade sector was notably soft (-25,000), and a drop of 9,000 among firms in the business-service area was disappointing.

Revisions to results in October and November were more notable than the new figures for December, as downward adjustments of 76,000 more than offset the gain in December and left a net decline in the fourth quarter. Several areas contributed to the revisions (retail trade, construction, health care, transportation & warehousing, business services).

Not only were the recent job numbers soft, but the average workweek among those employed eased 0.1 hour to 34.2 hours. The reading was still within the range of observations from the past two years, but it moved to the bottom of the range. A dip of 0.1 hour might seem trivial, but when applied to 160 million workers, it represents a constraint on production. This decline added to the soft tone of the report.

260109C.jpg

Although the payroll numbers were soft, the unemployment rate dipped 0.1 percentage point to 4.4%. The drop reflected a jump of 232,000 in employment as measured by the survey of households. This employment measure is more volatile than the payroll figures from the survey of business establishments, and thus the gain might contain a healthy dose of random volatility. Still, it offered encouragement in that December marked the fifth consecutive gain, perhaps signaling that the bottom was not falling out of the labor market. 

Average hourly earnings also suggested that the labor market still had a pulse. December showed an increase of 0.3% in average hourly earnings, and results in the prior month were firmer than previously estimated (0.2% growth rather than 0.1%). The underlying trend is still cooling, but the year-over-year advance of 3.8% still represents a gain in real earnings.

The employment and earnings data are collected from surveys taken each month during the week containing the 12th day of the month. The labor market data are contained in Haver's **USECON** database. Detailed figures are in the **EMPL** and **LABOR** databases. The expectations figures are in the **AS1REPNA** database.

- Modest job growth in December, and downward revisions in October & November.
- The unemployment rate, though, inched lower.

A Soft Tone in the Labor Market

Winnie Tapasanun

260109F17.jpg

260109G17.jpg

Total housing starts fell 4.6% m/m in October to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.246 million units—below expectations—following a 1.2% increase to 1.306 million in September and a 9.1% drop to 1.291 million in August (-8.5% m/m, 1.307 million previously), data from the U.S. Census Bureau showed. The Action Economics Forecast Survey had expected 1.321 million starts for October. The October figure marked the lowest level since May 2020 and represented the second m/m decline in three months after m/m increases in July and June. The year-on-year rate was at -7.8% in October, the steepest y/y drop since November 2024, following -3.8% in September and -1.2% in October 2024. Overall, starts remained 31.5% below the April 2022 peak of 1.820 million.

Single-family starts rebounded 5.4% (-7.8% y/y) to 874,000 in October, the highest level since July, after declines of 4.6% to 829,000 in September and 8.6% to 869,000 in August (890,000 previously). They reached a high of 1.218 million in November 2021 and a high of 1.273 in December 2020. Multi-family starts plunged 22.0% (-7.9% y/y) to 372,000, the lowest level since May, following a 13.0% September gain to 477,000 and a 10.0% August drop to 422,000 (417,000 previously). They reached a high of 629,000 units in November 2022 and a high of 616,000 units in April 2022.

By region, housing starts delivered a mixed performance. Starts in the West slumped 21.9% (-25.9% y/y) to 243,000 in October, the lowest level since July, after a 1.6% increase in September. Starts in the Northeast slid 0.6% (+41.3% y/y) to 154,000, the third m/m slide in four months, after a 58.2% September surge. To the upside, starts in the South rebounded 1.2% (-2.1% y/y) to 650,000 in October after a 3.6% decline in September and starts in the Midwest rose 0.5% (-20.7% y/y) to 199,000 after a 10.4% September decrease; for both regions, October represented the first m/m increase since July. Notably, the South continued to lead all regions with 650,000 starts, accounting for 52.2% of total U.S. housing starts; the region previously peaked at 1.044 million in April 2022.

Building permits fell 0.2% (-1.1% y/y) to 1.412 million in October, the sixth m/m fall in seven months, following a 6.4% rise to 1.415 million in September and a 2.3% decline to 1.330 million in August. They remained well below a high of 1.920 million in January 2022 and a high of 1.855 million in January 2021. Single-family permits fell 0.5% (-9.4% y/y) to 876,000, the second m/m fall in three months, after a 2.6% September increase to 880,000. They reached highs of 1.243 million in both January 2022 and January 2021. In contrast, multi-family permits rose 0.2% (16.3% y/y) to 536,000, the highest level since February 2024, after a 13.3% September gain to 535,000. They reached a peak of 817,000 units in February 2023 and a high of 787,000 units in June 2022. Regionally, permits fell m/m in the South (-3.3%; -3.9% y/y), the Midwest (-2.0%; -0.5% y/y), and the Northeast (-1.4%; +5.8% y/y), but increased m/m in the West (+9.1%; +2.1% y/y).

The housing starts and building permits figures can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. The expectations figure is contained in the **AS1REPNA** database.

260109H17.jpg

260109I17.jpg

- Housing starts -4.6% (-7.8% y/y) to 1.246 mil. in Oct.; second m/m fall in three months.
- Single-family starts up to a three-month high; multi-family starts down to a five-month low.
- Housing starts m/m down the West and Northeast but up in the South and Midwest.
- Building permits fall for the sixth time in seven months, led by a drop in single-family permits.

U.S. Housing Starts Decline in October; Lowest Level Since May ’20

260109E.jpg

German industrial production advanced by 0.8% month-to-month in November performing better than had been expected. Consumer goods output fell by 0.3% month-to-month, capital goods output soared with a 4.9% gain, while intermediate goods output fell back by 0.8%.  

On the whole, manufacturing output had been expected to be weak. But looking at manufacturing alone, rather than total industrial production, the gain was even stronger at 2.1% month-to-month. Real manufacturing orders in November rose by 5.6%, real sales in manufacturing rose by 2.7%. This is solid performance.

**Survey data have been weak and listless**
However, apart from anecdotal evidence, as monthly data unfold, the kinds of numbers that we have to look at first are various economic surveys that come from diffusion data. The ZEW’s current index was slightly stronger month-to-month at a still very weak -78.7 (net) reading compared to -80 in October although both of those were weaker than the ZEW net September reading of -76.4. IFO manufacturing weakened month-to-month in November at 87.1 compared to 88.1 in October and it was slightly weaker than its September value as well. IFO manufacturing expectations slipped to 94.1 in November from 96.9 in October although expectations were slightly higher than their level in September. The EU Commission index weakened in November to -18.9 from -18.1 in October although there was an improvement from -20.1 in September.

These comparisons show us that the survey data which we had in hand before getting the industrial production reading from Germany had given us a lot of weak readings and a lot of very weak momentum.

**Compare survey data to IP data using ranking technique**
We can compare industrial production data to survey data using two different columns in this table. The first is the queue standing column where we see the industrial production data with rankings mostly in their 50th percentile: intermediate goods have a ranking of 37.7% with construction at 33.4%; they are the weaker exceptions. We rank IP data by sector according to their annual growth rates compared to past growth rates.  However, by comparison the survey data (that we rank on levels) range between 12.1% and 29.8%; all of those are very weak readings. No wonder a focus on survey data leads to a weak upcoming assessment of production data. We can also look at a slightly more up-to-date, but shorter ranking, from January 2021. There we see that the industrial production data average rankings from the mid-60th percentile up to the 81.4 percentile for total industrial production. Surveys generally have rankings in the 20th and 30th percentile with the exception of IFO manufacturing expectations which reaches 67.8%, which is a solid reading.

260109.jpg

**Survey data signals should be downgraded?**
These comparisons show us that while it's hard to compare industrial output directly to the diffusion readings if we take those two metrics over the same timeline and compare the level of the diffusion index to the growth rate of the manufacturing index we get the capability to compare the two on more even footing. When we do that, we see that manufacturing data are doing better than the survey data very broadly speaking. So, while there's some surprise on the strength of manufacturing data, maybe we should place a greater emphasis on it because those data come from a real accounting process rather than from a survey process that is much less closely linked to magnitudes. And, essentially, we are really much more interested in magnitudes than just if something is higher and lower.

**Other Europe doing ‘well’, too**
Not so incidentally the industrial production readings for France, Spain, Portugal, and Norway, all of whom are fairly early reporters of industrial production data, rank well on the queue standing column as well as in the shorter rank standing column from January 2021. In fact, for these countries the difference in ranking between the two periods is not markedly different, certainly not as markedly different as it is for Germany. On the whole, it may be that Europe has been doing better than we thought because we've been spending too much time looking at the more up-to-date survey data on a PMI basis, rather than waiting for the more traditional and lagging industrial production reports that are accounting-based data and more thorough.