Tom Moeller

<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/090901d.jpg" width="353">
Earlier strength in gasoline prices took a breather during July and August. Nevertheless, prices remained up sharply since the year began. The pump price for regular gasoline dipped slightly last week to an average $2.61 per gallon, roughly where it&#39;s been since early June. Compared to the December low, however, prices remained up by one dollar (62%). Yesterday, that slight decline in pump prices was accompanied by a dip in the wholesale gasoline price to $1.84 per gallon. Prices had reached a high in early-August of $2.03. The figures are reported by the U.S. Department of Energy and can be found in Haver&#39;s WEEKLY &amp; DAILY databases.
In contrast to the stability of gasoline prices, crude oil prices have strengthened. Light sweet crude oil prices (WTI) increased to $72.41 per barrel last week versus a June high of $70.61. Prices have more-than-doubled since the December low of $32.37. Most recently, the price strength eased. Yesterday the spot market price for light sweet crude oil fell to $69.96 per barrel. Prices had reached a daily high of $73.82 just last week.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090901e.jpg" width="353">
Earlier strength in gasoline prices stood against the backdrop of a firming demand picture, which now has eased. Since early-June the demand for gasoline has dropped moderately and year-to year demand slipped by 3.5%. Demand for distillate also is off sharply (-19.8% y/y) and residual fuel oil demand has given back its earlier strength (-14.8% y/y). Finally, oil remains plentiful as evidenced by an 11.3% y/y rise in inventories of crude oil &amp; petroleum products. Inventories of gasoline recently have dropped somewhat but they have strengthened by 6.5% versus last year, the strongest gain since early last year. The figures on crude oil production and inventories are available in Haver&#39;s OILWKLY database.
Natural gas prices make up the weakest part of the energy sector&#39;s pricing environment. Falling last week to an average of $2.72 per mmbtu (-66.5% y/y), prices were down by over three-quarters from the high reached in early-July of last year of $13.19/mmbtu.
Has Greater Globalization Made Forecasting Inflation More Difficult? from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas can be found <a href="http://dallasfed.org/research/eclett/2009/el0905.pdf"> here</a>.

<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/WEEKLY/@W4/@W4.HTM">Weekly Prices</a></th>
<th scope="col">08/31/09</th>
<th scope="col">08/24/09</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retail Regular Gasoline ($ per Gallon, Regular)</td>
<td>2.61</td>
<td>2.63</td>
<td>-29.0%</td>
<td>3.25</td>
<td>2.80</td>
<td>2.57</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Light Sweet Crude Oil, WTI&nbsp; ($ per bbl.)</td>
<td>72.41</td>
<td>70.82</td>
<td>-37.9%</td>
<td>100.16</td>
<td>72.25</td>
<td>66.12</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Earlier strength in gasoline prices took a breather during July and August. Nevertheless, prices remained up sharply since the year began. The pump price for regular gasoline dipped slightly last week to an average $2.61 per gallon, [...]

Gasoline Prices Remain Roughly Stable As Crude Oil Prices Tick Higher

<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" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090901a.jpg">
According to The National Association of Purchasing Management data, the recession in U.S. factory sector activity is over. Its August composite index jumped to 52.9 from an unrevised July reading of 48.9 and reached it&#39;s highest level since June of 2007. (Any reading above the break-even point of 50 suggests rising activity.) The latest figure was up from the low of 32.9 hit last December and it greatly exceeded Consensus expectations for a reading of 50.5. The ISM data is available in Haver&#39;s USECON database.
Last month, improvement in the ISM index again was broad-based led by a 9.6 point surge in the new orders component. So great was the strengthening in orders that the latest index level of 64.9 was the highest since December of 2004. That compared to a low of 23.1 reached this past December and reflected increases in orders reported by 43% (NSA) of firms. Only 5% reported higher orders this past December. Adding to that strength in domestic orders, it appeared that recessions abroad also wound down. The export order index jumped to 55.5 versus the December low of 35.5. During the last ten years there has been a 53% correlation between the index and the q/q change in real exports of goods in the GDP accounts.<img align="right" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090901b.jpg">
Factory sector improvement also was indicated by a rise in the employment index. Though still reflecting a drop in payrolls, the rate of decline has eased. The index rose to 46.4 which was its highest level since last August and that was up from the February low of 26.1. During the last ten years there has been a 90% correlation between the index level and the three-month change in manufacturing payrolls.
The production component also strengthened. The rise to 61.9 was to its highest level since October 2005, up from the low of 26.3 in December. During the last ten years there has been an 84% correlation between the level of the production component of the composite index and the three-month growth in factory sector industrial production. It is appropriate to correlate the ISM index level with factory sector output growth because the ISM index is a diffusion index. It measures growth by using all of the positive changes in activity added to one half of the zero change in activity measures.<img align="left" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090901c.jpg">
All this improvement in activity has brought with it a slowing in the speed of vendor deliveries. That&#39;s indicated by the gain in the delivery index to the highest level since 2006. The rate of inventory destocking also appears to have slowed. The inventory index increased modestly to 34.4 but it still was near the lowest level since 1982.
The separate index of prices paid again rose with improved factory sector activity. At 65.0 the reading above the break-even level of 50 was its highest level since last August and it&#39;s up from the December low of 18.0. During the last twenty years there has been a 79% correlation between the price index and the three-month change in the PPI for intermediate goods.

<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/@S2/@S201/@S201.HTM">ISM Mfg</a></th>
<th scope="col">August</th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">August &#39;08</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Composite Index</td>
<td>52.9</td>
<td>48.9</td>
<td>49.3</td>
<td>45.5</td>
<td>51.1</td>
<td>53.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; New Orders Index</td>
<td>64.9</td>
<td>55.3</td>
<td>48.2</td>
<td>42.1</td>
<td>54.3</td>
<td>55.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Employment Index</td>
<td>46.2</td>
<td>45.6</td>
<td>48.0</td>
<td>43.2</td>
<td>50.5</td>
<td>51.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid Index (NSA)</td>
<td>65.0</td>
<td>55.0</td>
<td>77.0</td>
<td>66.5</td>
<td>64.6</td>
<td>65.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

According to The National Association of Purchasing Management data, the recession in U.S. factory sector activity is over. Its August composite index jumped to 52.9 from an unrevised July reading of 48.9 and reached it's highest [...]

The Factory Sector Recession Is Over; ISM Index Jumps To Highest Level Since Early-2007

The Factory Sector Recession IsOver; ISM Index Jumps To Highest Level Since Early-2007

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 src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090831d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">India's real gross domestic
product rose 6.1% in the second
quarter from the second quarter of 2008, up from the 5.8% year over
year growth in the first quarter. It was the first acceleration in
growth since the fourth quarter of 2007 when the global recession began
to affect the Indian economy. Among the industries contributing to the
acceleration in growth were manufacturing, mining and quarrying,
electricity gas and water and the service industries covering trade,
hotels, transport and communications. The year to year growth in these
industries is shown in the first chart.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090831e.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Earlier this year, the Reserve Bank of India forecasted that
the economy would increase 6% in the fiscal year ending March 2010
while the Federal Government was estimating growth between 6.25% and
7.75%. Since then, the weak summer monsoon, reducing prospects for
agriculture output, has cast doubts on these projections, Although
agriculture has been declining in importance in the Indian economy for
years (as can be seen in the second chart), it still accounts for a
slightly larger portion of the economy than manufacturing. In fiscal
2008, agriculture accounted for 17% of total GDP and manufacturing for
15%. Agriculture output increased 2.4% in the second quarter over the
corresponding period of 2008, down from the 2.7% increase in the first
quarter. The recent announcement by the Farm ministry that 44% of the
625 administered districts reported drought or drought like conditions
suggests a grim outlook for agriculture in the third quarter.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Year/year
Percent Change</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 09</th>
<th scope="col">Q1&nbsp; 09</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 08</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 08</th>
<th scope="col">Q1 08 </th>
<th scope="col">Q4 07 </th>
<th scope="col"> Q3 07 </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Gross Domestic Product by
Industry</td>
<td>6.13</td>
<td>5.76</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>7.75</td>
<td>7.80</td>
<td>8.63</td>
<td>9.25</td>
<td>9.01</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Manufacturing</td>
<td>3.45</td>
<td>-1.36</td>
<td>0.90</td>
<td>5.08</td>
<td>5.50</td>
<td>6.29</td>
<td>8.62</td>
<td>8.23</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Mining and Quarrying</td>
<td>7.88</td>
<td>1.60</td>
<td>4.90</td>
<td>3.70</td>
<td>4.61</td>
<td>4.67</td>
<td>4.16</td>
<td>3.83</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Electric, Gas, Water</td>
<td>6.19</td>
<td>3.58</td>
<td>3.51</td>
<td>3.78</td>
<td>2.75</td>
<td>4.58</td>
<td>3.80</td>
<td>5.86</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Agriculture</td>
<td>2.37</td>
<td>2.68</td>
<td>-0.84</td>
<td>2.65</td>
<td>3.04</td>
<td>2.23</td>
<td>8.06</td>
<td>3.86</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Services</td>
<td>7.70</td>
<td>8.41</td>
<td>9.53</td>
<td>9.77</td>
<td>9.99</td>
<td>11.28</td>
<td>10.21</td>
<td>10.68</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Construction</td>
<td>7.10</td>
<td>6.79</td>
<td>4.16</td>
<td>9.56</td>
<td>8.44</td>
<td>6.90</td>
<td>9.70</td>
<td>13.4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Trade, Hotels,
Transport, Communications</td>
<td>8.08</td>
<td>6.32</td>
<td>5.88</td>
<td>12.09</td>
<td>12.97</td>
<td>13.76</td>
<td>11.66</td>
<td>10.90</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate &amp; Business Services</td>
<td>8.06</td>
<td>9.51</td>
<td>8.30</td>
<td>6.37</td>
<td>6.92</td>
<td>10.31</td>
<td>11.89</td>
<td>12.37</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Community, Social
and Personal Services</td>
<td>6.78</td>
<td>12.55</td>
<td>22.49</td>
<td>8.96</td>
<td>8.17</td>
<td>9.73</td>
<td>5.51</td>
<td>7.08</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

</body></html>

India's real gross domestic product rose 6.1% in the second quarter from the second quarter of 2008, up from the 5.8% year over year growth in the first quarter. It was the first acceleration in growth since the fourth quarter of 2007 [...]

India Reports Acceleration in 2nd Q Growth, but Weak Monsoon Challenges Its Continuance

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 




<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090831a.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">Middle
America finally appears to be emerging from its sharp recession.
Reporting this morning, the Chicago Purchasing Managers Association
indicated that its August Business Barometer Index rose to 50, at the
break-even level for the first month since last September. The increase
was led by a rise in the orders and production components that breached
50 for the first month since June of last year. In addition, the order
backlogs index surged to its highest level since last September. The
employment series also gained but only back to its December level. The
Chicago PMI figures are diffusion indexes and are available in Haver's SURVEYS
database. In a separate report issued last week, the Chicago
Federal Reserve Bank reported that the National Activity Index (CFNAI)
rose in July to the highest level since January of last year. The
reading of -0.74 was up from June and both figures were higher than the
series' low of -3.99 reached this past January. Since 1970 there has
been a 74% correlation between the level of the index and the q/q
change in real GDP. <img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090831b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The three-month moving average
of the index also improved to its highest level since August. 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%. The
complete CFNAI report is available <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/economic_research_and_data/files/cfnai_august2009.pdf">here.</a>·
The production and income components made the largest positive
contributions to the July CFNAI. Thirty-five of the index components
had a positive influence on the overall index while 50 had a negative
influence. <img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090831c.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
These figures contrast to last month's report on June
activity when 22 of the index components had a positive influence while
63 made a negative contribution. 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 yet a third survey, the
Chicago Fed indicated that its Midwest manufacturing index improved
slightly during July and recovered declines during the prior two
months. Nevertheless, the figure remained near the lowest since 2003.
Indicators for the auto and steel sectors rose while machinery fell.
The Chicago Federal Reserve figures also are available in Haver's SURVEYS
database. Clearing and settlement of exchange
traded derivatives from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
can be found <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedletter/cfloctober2009_267.pdf">
here</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"></th>
<th scope="col">August</th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">Aug. '08</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="grey4">
<td class="firstcol">Chicago
Purchasing Managers Index</td>
<td>50.0</td>
<td>43.4</td>
<td>39.9</td>
<td>56.4</td>
<td>46.8</td>
<td>54.4</td>
<td>56.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; New Orders</td>
<td>52.5</td>
<td>48.0</td>
<td>41.6</td>
<td>58.0</td>
<td>46.7</td>
<td>57.7</td>
<td>59.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Production</td>
<td>52.9</td>
<td>43.3</td>
<td>39.3</td>
<td>61.2</td>
<td>48.1</td>
<td>58.3</td>
<td>60.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Employment</td>
<td>38.7</td>
<td>35.3</td>
<td>28.9</td>
<td>39.2</td>
<td>41.4</td>
<td>51.5</td>
<td>51.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S5/@S503/@S503.HTM">Chicago
Fed Nat'l Activity Index</a></td>
<td>--</td>
<td>-0.74</td>
<td>-1.82</td>
<td>-1.29 (July '08)</td>
<td>-1.77</td>
<td>-0.35</td>
<td>0.05</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; 3-Month Moving
Average</td>
<td></td>
<td>-1.69</td>
<td>-2.18</td>
<td>-1.17</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">Chicago Fed
Midwest Factory Index</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>79.7</td>
<td>78.1</td>
<td>103.5</td>
<td>101.6</td>
<td>107.4</td>
<td>107.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Auto Sector</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>51.7</td>
<td>45.1</td>
<td>76.8</td>
<td>73.2</td>
<td>86.5</td>
<td>87.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Machinery
Sector</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>91.6</td>
<td>93.6</td>
<td>126.4</td>
<td>125.3</td>
<td>127.7</td>
<td>129.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Middle America finally appears to be emerging from its sharp recession. Reporting this morning, the Chicago Purchasing Managers Association indicated that its August Business Barometer Index rose to 50, at the break-even level for the [...]

Several Indices of Midwest Economic Activity Improve; August PMI Moves To Break-Even

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 




<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090831a.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">Middle
America finally appears to be emerging from its sharp recession.
Reporting this morning, the Chicago Purchasing Managers Association
indicated that its August Business Barometer Index rose to 50, at the
break-even level for the first month since last September. The increase
was led by a rise in the orders and production components that breached
50 for the first month since June of last year. In addition, the order
backlogs index surged to its highest level since last September. The
employment series also gained but only back to its December level. The
Chicago PMI figures are diffusion indexes and are available in Haver's SURVEYS
database. 
In a separate report issued last week, the Chicago
Federal Reserve Bank reported that the National Activity Index (CFNAI)
rose in July to the highest level since January of last year. The
reading of -0.74 was up from June and both figures were higher than the
series' low of -3.99 reached this past January. Since 1970 there has
been a 74% correlation between the level of the index and the q/q
change in real GDP. <img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090831b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The three-month moving average
of the index also improved to its highest level since August. 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%. The
complete CFNAI report is available <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/economic_research_and_data/files/cfnai_august2009.pdf">here.</a>·
The production and income components made the largest positive
contributions to the July CFNAI. Thirty-five of the index components
had a positive influence on the overall index while 50 had a negative
influence. <img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090831c.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
These figures contrast to last month's report on June
activity when 22 of the index components had a positive influence while
63 made a negative contribution. 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 yet a third survey, the
Chicago Fed indicated that its Midwest manufacturing index improved
slightly during July and recovered declines during the prior two
months. Nevertheless, the figure remained near the lowest since 2003.
Indicators for the auto and steel sectors rose while machinery fell.
The Chicago Federal Reserve figures also are available in Haver's SURVEYS
database.
 Clearing and settlement of exchange
traded derivatives from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
can be found <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedletter/cfloctober2009_267.pdf">
here</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"></th>
<th scope="col">August</th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">Aug. '08</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="grey4">
<td class="firstcol">Chicago
Purchasing Managers Index</td>
<td>50.0</td>
<td>43.4</td>
<td>39.9</td>
<td>56.4</td>
<td>46.8</td>
<td>54.4</td>
<td>56.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; New Orders</td>
<td>52.5</td>
<td>48.0</td>
<td>41.6</td>
<td>58.0</td>
<td>46.7</td>
<td>57.7</td>
<td>59.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Production</td>
<td>52.9</td>
<td>43.3</td>
<td>39.3</td>
<td>61.2</td>
<td>48.1</td>
<td>58.3</td>
<td>60.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Employment</td>
<td>38.7</td>
<td>35.3</td>
<td>28.9</td>
<td>39.2</td>
<td>41.4</td>
<td>51.5</td>
<td>51.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S5/@S503/@S503.HTM">Chicago
Fed Nat'l Activity Index</a></td>
<td>--</td>
<td>-0.74</td>
<td>-1.82</td>
<td>-1.29 (July '08)</td>
<td>-1.77</td>
<td>-0.35</td>
<td>0.05</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; 3-Month Moving
Average</td>
<td></td>
<td>-1.69</td>
<td>-2.18</td>
<td>-1.17</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">Chicago Fed
Midwest Factory Index</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>79.7</td>
<td>78.1</td>
<td>103.5</td>
<td>101.6</td>
<td>107.4</td>
<td>107.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Auto Sector</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>51.7</td>
<td>45.1</td>
<td>76.8</td>
<td>73.2</td>
<td>86.5</td>
<td>87.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Machinery
Sector</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>91.6</td>
<td>93.6</td>
<td>126.4</td>
<td>125.3</td>
<td>127.7</td>
<td>129.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

India Reports Acceleration in 2nd
Q Growth, but Weak Monsoon Challenges Its Continuance 
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise
Curley</a> August 31, 2009



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090831d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">India's real gross domestic
product rose 6.1% in the second
quarter from the second quarter of 2008, up from the 5.8% year over
year growth in the first quarter. It was the first acceleration in
growth since the fourth quarter of 2007 when the global recession began
to affect the Indian economy. Among the industries contributing to the
acceleration in growth were manufacturing, mining and quarrying,
electricity gas and water and the service industries covering trade,
hotels, transport and communications. The year to year growth in these
industries is shown in the first chart.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090831e.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Earlier this year, the Reserve Bank of India forecasted that
the economy would increase 6% in the fiscal year ending March 2010
while the Federal Government was estimating growth between 6.25% and
7.75%. Since then, the weak summer monsoon, reducing prospects for
agriculture output, has cast doubts on these projections, Although
agriculture has been declining in importance in the Indian economy for
years (as can be seen in the second chart), it still accounts for a
slightly larger portion of the economy than manufacturing. In fiscal
2008, agriculture accounted for 17% of total GDP and manufacturing for
15%. Agriculture output increased 2.4% in the second quarter over the
corresponding period of 2008, down from the 2.7% increase in the first
quarter. The recent announcement by the Farm ministry that 44% of the
625 administered districts reported drought or drought like conditions
suggests a grim outlook for agriculture in the third quarter.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Year/year
Percent Change</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 09</th>
<th scope="col">Q1&nbsp; 09</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 08</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 08</th>
<th scope="col">Q1 08 </th>
<th scope="col">Q4 07 </th>
<th scope="col"> Q3 07 </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Gross Domestic Product by
Industry</td>
<td>6.13</td>
<td>5.76</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>7.75</td>
<td>7.80</td>
<td>8.63</td>
<td>9.25</td>
<td>9.01</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Manufacturing</td>
<td>3.45</td>
<td>-1.36</td>
<td>0.90</td>
<td>5.08</td>
<td>5.50</td>
<td>6.29</td>
<td>8.62</td>
<td>8.23</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Mining and Quarrying</td>
<td>7.88</td>
<td>1.60</td>
<td>4.90</td>
<td>3.70</td>
<td>4.61</td>
<td>4.67</td>
<td>4.16</td>
<td>3.83</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Electric, Gas, Water</td>
<td>6.19</td>
<td>3.58</td>
<td>3.51</td>
<td>3.78</td>
<td>2.75</td>
<td>4.58</td>
<td>3.80</td>
<td>5.86</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Agriculture</td>
<td>2.37</td>
<td>2.68</td>
<td>-0.84</td>
<td>2.65</td>
<td>3.04</td>
<td>2.23</td>
<td>8.06</td>
<td>3.86</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Services</td>
<td>7.70</td>
<td>8.41</td>
<td>9.53</td>
<td>9.77</td>
<td>9.99</td>
<td>11.28</td>
<td>10.21</td>
<td>10.68</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Construction</td>
<td>7.10</td>
<td>6.79</td>
<td>4.16</td>
<td>9.56</td>
<td>8.44</td>
<td>6.90</td>
<td>9.70</td>
<td>13.4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Trade, Hotels,
Transport, Communications</td>
<td>8.08</td>
<td>6.32</td>
<td>5.88</td>
<td>12.09</td>
<td>12.97</td>
<td>13.76</td>
<td>11.66</td>
<td>10.90</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate &amp; Business Services</td>
<td>8.06</td>
<td>9.51</td>
<td>8.30</td>
<td>6.37</td>
<td>6.92</td>
<td>10.31</td>
<td>11.89</td>
<td>12.37</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Community, Social
and Personal Services</td>
<td>6.78</td>
<td>12.55</td>
<td>22.49</td>
<td>8.96</td>
<td>8.17</td>
<td>9.73</td>
<td>5.51</td>
<td>7.08</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Several Indices of MidwestEconomic Activity Improve; August PMI Moves To Break-Even

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 src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090828a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The EU Commission indices kicked out the jams this month with
increases that left the economic forecasts standing in the dust
wondering what happened. The overall commission sentiment index made
its largest jump since at least 1988l lead by the industrial index&#8217;s
largest jump since 1988 and the service sector&#8217;s largest jump since it
began in 1996. While consumer confidence and retailing improved
month-to-month their respective rises were milder ranking as the 31st
best rise (out of 251 that is still not bad). The EMU overall index
made its second largest jump, The German sentiment index made its
largest jump along with the UK. The monthly rises for Italy and Spain
ranked about 20th in their respective histories. France did not report. 
 

In terms of levels all sectors have a ways to go as sector
readings are negative in absolute terms. 
 

In terms of the various indices standing in their respective
ranges compared to historic vales the EU index stands in the 36th
percentile of its range just above the boundary for the lower third of
its range. The EMU index Germany and Spain all stand around the 30th
percentiles of their respective ranges. The UK is better off in the
40th percentile of its range. 
 

In terms of sectors, the relatively strongest sector is
retailing in the 41st percentile of its range followed by the consumer
confidence reading (35th percentile) and services (31st percentile).
The industrial sector stands in the 28th percentile of its range and
construction hovers in the bottom 13th percentile of its range. 
 

For the most part these distinctions are not so important. All
the various indices stand well below the 50 percentile mark that
denotes the middle of their respective ranges. All are well below par.
All are well away from their respective range midpoints. If this were a
game of football none would have an insurmountable lead but the
construction sector (team) might consider resting its best players to
use another day&#8230;The good news this month is in how much the various
indices have risen and improved not about what strikingly high values
they have reached. These readings are still quite weak across sectors
and across EU and EMU reporting countries. The momentum, however, is
excellent. 


<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="14" scope="col"> EU
Sectors and Country level Overall Sentiment</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">EU</td>
<td>Aug 
09</td>
<td>
Jul 
09</td>
<td>Jun 
09</td>
<td>May 
09</td>
<td>%tile</td>
<td>Rank</td>
<td>Max</td>
<td>Min</td>
<td>Range</td>
<td>Mean</td>
<td>By
 
Queue 
Rank%</td>
<td>R-SQ 
w/Overall</td>
<td>Rank
of 
Change</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Overall
Index</td>
<td>80.9</td>
<td>75</td>
<td>71.1</td>
<td>67.9</td>
<td>36.9</td>
<td>229</td>
<td>116</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>-48.7%</td>
<td>1.00</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Industrial</td>
<td>-26</td>
<td>-30</td>
<td>-33</td>
<td>-34</td>
<td>28.3</td>
<td>236</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>-39</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>-7</td>
<td>-53.2%</td>
<td>0.90</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>-20</td>
<td>-21</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>-26</td>
<td>35.3</td>
<td>220</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-32</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>-42.9%</td>
<td>0.86</td>
<td>31</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retail</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>-14</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>41.9</td>
<td>216</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>-25</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>-6</td>
<td>-40.3%</td>
<td>0.66</td>
<td>31</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Construction</td>
<td>-36</td>
<td>-37</td>
<td>-37</td>
<td>-39</td>
<td>13.0</td>
<td>227</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>-42</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>-16</td>
<td>-47.4%</td>
<td>0.47</td>
<td>44</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Services</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>-26</td>
<td>31.7</td>
<td>145</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>-31</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>0.89</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>% m/m</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>Aug 
09</td>
<td colspan="2">Based
on&nbsp;
Level</td>
<td colspan="4">Level</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">EMU</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>80.6</td>
<td>30.5</td>
<td>230</td>
<td>117</td>
<td>65</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>-49.4%</td>
<td>0.95</td>
<td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>85.9</td>
<td>28.0</td>
<td>218</td>
<td>121</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>-41.6%</td>
<td>0.70</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>87.5</td>
<td>37.0</td>
<td>222</td>
<td>122</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>-44.2%</td>
<td>0.83</td>
<td>20</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Spain</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>81.9</td>
<td>30.5</td>
<td>223</td>
<td>117</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>-44.8%</td>
<td>0.74</td>
<td>19</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Memo: UK</td>
<td>13.1%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>83.5</td>
<td>40.3</td>
<td>226</td>
<td>124</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>-46.8%</td>
<td>0.59</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Since Oct 1988</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>251</td>
<td>-Count</td>
<td>Services:</td>
<td>154</td>
<td>-Count</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="14" class="firstcol">Sentiment
is an index, sector
readings are net balance diffusion measures</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The EU Commission indices kicked out the jams this month with increases that left the economic forecasts standing in the dust wondering what happened. The overall commission sentiment index made its largest jump since at least 1988l [...]

EU Commission Indices Surprise: Show a Real Turn Is in Progress

Carol Stone, CBE

<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/090828b.jpg" width="353">
Personal income in July was almost exactly equalto June&#39;s amount, $11,957.4 billion versus $11,953.6 billion. While transfer payments and dividends decreased, this report includes the first increase in wages and salaries since last October, surely a welcome development, albeit a small one. Consensus forecasts were close to the actual, as they called for a 0.1% rise in total income.Transfers continued to fall in the wake of the stimulus-generated bulge in May, but the July decline was just 0.2%. Notably, this included a small decrease in unemployment benefits. The drop in dividends was 2.6%, larger than in May and June, but much less than the 4.9% average cut each month of Q1.
The wage and salary increases were small, just 0.1%, but this was evenly spread across goods producers, service producers and government workers. Another cyclically tied item, nonfarm proprietors&#39; income, gained for a second month, rising in July by 0.8% after 0.3% in June. Prior to that, this small-business-owners&#39; income had fallen for 10 consecutive months. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090828c.jpg" width="353">
Taxes turned back higher as well last month, increasing 0.8%, their first increase since August 2008. Obviously, the pattern of stimulus-oriented refunds is impacting the monthly changes. More generally, taxes have recently been running at 9% of personal income, compared with 12.6% back at the peak of the economy and the first few months of recession in early 2008.
The steadier behavior of pre-tax incomes means that, despite the higher taxes in July, disposable personal income basically held at its June amount after a slightly revised 1.1% decline in June. Adjusted for inflation, real disposable income eased just 0.1%; it had fallen 1.6% in June. The saving rate decreased again, from June&#39;s 4.5% to 4.2%; obviously lower than the recent peak of 6.0% in May, it remains far higher than last July&#39;s 2.6% and compares favorably with almost the entire stretch of this decade so far.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090828d.jpg" width="353">
Consumer spending gained 0.2% in July after a 0.6% rise in June. Durable goods outlays were up 1.3%, as the initial weeks of the &quot;cash-for-clunkers&quot; program generated a surge of 22.3% in spending on new autos. [What will August&#39;s number show??]. Trucks benefited little from the program, but spending for them still went up 4.8%. Nondurable goods spending eased 0.3%, including a 2.2% drop in gasoline; recreation items, personal care products and household supplies also saw moderate decreases. Among services, total outlays increased 0.3%. This modest change masks some interesting moves individual items: spending on electricity was down 2% and has fallen in every month of 2009 so far. Transportation services were up 1.6%, but those related to personal motor vehicles increased just 0.3% while public transportation outlays gained 5.6%, with ground and air transport both participating. Finally, the comprehensive national accounts revisions have moved restaurants from nondurable goods to the service sector. Food services spending was up 0.4% in July, reversing June&#39;s 0.3% decline; the portion spent on &quot;alcohol in purchased meals&quot; gained 0.9%, however, its first increase in five months.
Pricing power remains basically nonexistent. The PCE chain price index was virtually flat last month, as energy prices decreased 0.4% after their surge in June. The ex-food-and-energy &quot;core&quot; was up a mere 0.1%, very close to its May and June amounts. Prices for services, long the most inflation-prone consumer items, increased just 0.1%, but this was largest one-month increase since last October.
The personal income &amp; consumption figures are available in Haver&#39;s USECON and USNA databases.

<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/USECON/@E7/@E711/@E71102/@E71102.HTM">Disposition of Personal Income</a> (%)&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Personal Income</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>-1.1</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>-2.4</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>5.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Disposable Personal Income</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>-1.1</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>3.9</td>
<td>4.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Personal Consumption Expenditures</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>-1.6</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>5.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Saving Rate</td>
<td>4.2</td>
<td>4.5</td>
<td>6.0</td>
<td>2.6 (July &#39;08)</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>1.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">PCE Chain Price Index</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>-0.8</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>2.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Less food &amp; energy</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td>2.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Personal income in July was almost exactly equalto June's amount, $11,957.4 billion versus $11,953.6 billion. While transfer payments and dividends decreased, this report includes the first increase in wages and salaries since last [...]

U.S. Personal Income Steadies in July after June Drop; PCE Shows First Effect of "Cash-for-Clunkers"

More pronounced upward revisions in countries more exposed to AI investment

Stable job openings and hiring rates point to cautious hiring

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

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

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

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

PMIs show still-elevated but slowing US inflation

AI boosting US investment in data centers

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

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

US financial markets have gotten used to elevated policy uncertainty

FOMC now expects more rate cuts going forward than in June

China gaining ASEAN exports while US exports slump

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

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

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

Equity market exuberance outpacing macroeconomic data

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

US production rebounded in Q2, but demand continued to slow

US leader, Germany trailer for real GDP growth over past 3 years

Negative US inflation surprises leading G10 down

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

Service Health

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

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Featured Data Additions

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Andrew Cates

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

260115Z1.jpg

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

260115Z2.jpg

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

260115Z3.jpg

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

260115Z4.jpg

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

260115Z5.jpg

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

260115Z6.jpg

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

<iframe data-testid="embed-iframe" style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/2mhM227WWeJJ6kRv7sJMiE?utm_source=generator" width="100%" height="152" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" loading="lazy"></iframe>

Charts of the Week: Between Optimism and Uncertainty

Michael J. Moran

260115J.jpg

260115K.jpg

The Bureau of Labor Statistics did not publish a report on export and import prices for October because of the government shutdown, and BLS was unable to construct statistics for October to include with the November report. The charts above have a gap in October, and the November figures are represented by a small dot.

Import prices have been remarkably stable in the past three years, as shown by the sideways movement in the level of the import price index (left chart). Focusing on percent changes (i.e. inflation rates) rather than the level of the index shows deflation in 2023 and early 2024 followed by higher prices more recently (right chart). Still, the net change in the past 12 months has totaled only 0.1% and the cumulative change in the past three years amounted to a decline of 0.4%.

A calm environment in the energy sector has helped to restrain import prices, as the price of crude oil showed little change in 2023 and 2024 and declined in 2025. Import prices excluding petroleum products have increased in recent years, but the changes have been modest: 0.9 in the past 12 months and 1.3% in the past three years.

The non-oil components of import prices have traced various patterns in recent years, but shifts have been largely offsetting. Prices of food and autos increased noticeably in 2023 and 2024, but they gave back much of those increases in 2025. Prices of capital goods were stable in 2023 and 2024, but they started to increase in 2025. Prices of consumer goods have been volatile, showing bursts of higher prices followed by discounting, leaving a modest net increase in the past three years.

The calm energy environment also seemed to play a role on the export side, as the industrial supply category showed little net change in prices over 2023 and 2024 before jumping in early 2025. Food prices followed a similar pattern, showing two years of restraint before moving higher in 2025. These two categories account for much of the upward movement in overall export prices in 2025. Prices of consumer goods also started to move higher in 2025 after little net change in the prior two years. Prices of capital goods and automobiles have traced reasonably steady upward paths.

Many observers might try to use the import component of this report to gain insight into the effect of tariffs on prices. That will be difficult because the figures from this report are pre-tariff; there will be no independent upward pressure on prices in this report because of tariffs. In fact, one should look for lower import prices in searching for a tariff effect. That is, if a foreign exporter were to absorb the tariff burden, that would be accomplished by reducing the pre-tariff price in order to keep the after-tariff price steady.

260115L.jpg

Some exporters to the US may have made such efforts. The nearby chart shows the month-to-month change in import prices in 2025, and May and June both showed lower prices. These months were especially important because they followed the announcement by President Trump of marked increases in tariffs in April. Also, some of the downward pressure occurred in components that would be sensitive to price (autos and consumer goods). Of course, May and June might be too soon after the announcement of draconian tariffs for foreign exporters to assess and change their pricing strategy.

The chart on monthly changes ends in September because the absence of an October reading prevents the calculation of the month-to-month changes for October and November. However, the two-month change from September to November is easily calculated, and the increase of 0.4% suggests little or no effort to absorb the burden of tariffs.

These import and export price series are not seasonally adjusted; they can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. Detailed figures are available in the **USINT** database. The expectations figure from the Action Economics Forecast Survey is in the **AS1REPNA** database.

- Import prices have changed little in the past three years.
- Export prices were stable in 2023-24, but moved higher in 2025.

Import & Export Prices: Generally Modest Changes

Winnie Tapasanun

260115J39.jpg

260115JK9.jpg

The Empire State Manufacturing Index of General Business Conditions rose to a higher-than-expected 7.7 in January following a 17.2-drop to -3.7 in December, according to the Empire State Manufacturing Survey released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. A reading of 1.0 for January had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The positive January figure indicated that the business activity in New York State expanded for the third time in four months; it was an improvement from -7.4 in January 2025 and a low of -29.7 in January 2024, though still below a high of 16.8 in November 2024. The percentage of respondents reporting an increase in general business conditions was 34.2% in January, up from 31.7% in December; the percentage reporting a decrease was 26.5%, down from December’s 35.4%. The latest survey was conducted between January 2 and January 9.

The headline index reflects the answer to a single question concerning the state of economic activity and is not calculated from the components. Haver Analytics calculates a composite index from the five major components, which is comparable to the ISM manufacturing index. This calculated index increased to 51.2 in January following a 4.2-point decline to the neutral-level 50.0 in December (the lowest level since September); it was slightly up from 50.7 in January 2025 and well above a low of 43.0 in January 2024. The index is the average of five diffusion indexes: new orders, shipments, employment, supplier deliveries and inventories with equal weights (20% each).

In the latest survey, the new orders index rose to 6.6 in January after a 10.6-point drop to -1.0 in December, marking the third m/m gain in orders in four months and a sharp improvement from a low of -30.7 in January 2024. The shipments index jumped to 16.3 in January, the highest level since November 2024, following a 16.5-point fall to -5.0 in December; it was well above a low of -21.7 in April 2024. The unfilled orders index improved to -8.2 in January after a 9.1-point decrease to -14.9 in December, indicating that unfilled orders contracted for the eighth straight month but at a less severe pace; the index reached a low of -24.2 in January 2024. The inventories index fell to -2.1 in January, the lowest level since September, after a 2.7-point decline to 4.0 in December, signaling the first inventory contraction since October. Meanwhile, the delivery times index increased to 0.0 in January from -5.9 in December, with 12.4% of respondents reporting longer delivery times and an identical 12.4% reporting shorter times, indicating that delivery times were unchanged.

On the labor front, the number of employees index fell to -9.0 in January after a 1.0-point increase to 7.5 in December, indicating that employment contracted for the first time since September and reached its lowest level since January 2024. The index remained well below a peak of 24.9 in February 2022. In January, only 7.9% of respondents reported an increase in employment while a higher 16.8% reported a decline. The average workweek index dropped to -5.4 in January from 2.5 in December, turning negative for the first time since October and hitting the lowest level since April 2025.

Inflation pressures eased in January but remained high. The prices paid index fell to 42.8 in January, the lowest level since March 2025, after a 5.9-point decrease to 44.2 in December. Although still well below a peak of 84.9 in April 2022, the index remained above a low of 25.9 in December 2024 and a low of 20.8 in December 2023. In January, 44.5% of respondents reported higher prices paid while only 1.7% reported lower prices paid. The prices received index fell to 14.4 in January, the lowest reading since January 2025, from 25.4 in December. The index was up from a low of 7.5 in December 2024 and a low of 7.7 in July 2023 but far below a high of 51.9 in March 2022. In January, 18.9% of respondents reported higher prices received while 4.4% reported lower prices received.

Firms remained fairly optimistic about the future business outlook in the latest survey. The index for future business conditions eased to 30.3 in January after rising to 33.5 in December, with 50.6% of respondents expecting business conditions to improve over the next six months. Future new orders edged down to 33.3 in January from 34.5 in December, while future shipments rose to 34.9—the highest level since March 2022—from December’s 30.7. Growth in future employment strengthened to 14.9, the highest reading since November 2024, from December’s 7.8. Capital spending plans remained positive for the third consecutive month in January, with the future capital expenditures index rising to 10.3 from December’s 6.9. Expected prices paid fell to 52.6 in January from 55.4 in December and expected prices received fell to 36.5 from 41.6, with both measures at their lowest levels since December 2024.

The indexes in this report are diffusion indexes and measure the percentage of respondents indicating an increase minus the percentage indicating a decrease with zero separating expansion from contraction.

The New York Fed survey data are contained in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database. The expectations series is in Haver’s **AS1REPNA** database.

260115L39.jpg

260115M39.jpg

- General Business Conditions Index up 11.4 pts. to 7.7 in January.
- Positive: Shipments (16.3, highest since Nov. ’24) and new orders (6.6).
- Negative: Employment (-9.0, lowest since Jan. ’24), unfilled orders (-8.2), and inventories (-2.1, a four-month low).
- Prices paid at a 10-month-low 42.8 and prices received at a one-year-low 14.4.
- Firms fairly optimistic: Future Business Conditions Index down to a still-positive 30.3; future prices paid at a one-year-low 52.6.

U.S. Empire State Manufacturing Index Returns to Positive Territory in January

Sandy Batten

260115N2.jpg

260115O2.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

260115P2.jpg

260115Q2.jpg

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

Philly Fed Manufacturing Activity Rebounds in January

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

260115A5.jpg

260115B5.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

260115C5.jpg

260115D5.jpg

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