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>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090721e.jpg" width="353">
The strengthening of chain store sales around the July 4th holiday faded as the month progressed. During the latest week, chain store sales rose 0.5% but that recovered just half of the prior week&#39;s decline. So far in July sales have increased 0.7% since June after that month&#39;s 0.3% decline and a 0.2% May downtick.
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 sales. The weekly figures are available in Haver&#39;s SURVEYW database.
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.
Prospects for improvement in sales seems limited. The leading indicator of sales ticked up 0.3% (-2.4% y/y) during the latest week and it has been flat-to-lower all this year.
Exit Strategies for the Federal Reserve from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis can be found <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/econ/bullard/PhiladelphiaGIC28june2009FINAL653pm.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/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">07/18/09</th>
<th scope="col">07/11/09</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">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>491.7</td>
<td>489.4</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

The strengthening of chain store sales around the July 4th holiday faded as the month progressed. During the latest week, chain store sales rose 0.5% but that recovered just half of the prior week's decline. So far in July sales have [...]

Weekly Chain Store Sales Remain Flat

<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/090721c.jpg" width="353">
Recession in the U.S. economy prompted a lower retail price for gasoline last week. The pump price for regular gasoline fell to an average $2.46 per gallon, down twenty-three cents from last month&#39;s high. Nevertheless, prices remained up by eighty-five cents (53%) from the December low. In the cash market, gasoline prices yesterday continued to rally off last week&#39;s low. At $1.75 per gallon the price was up from the low of $1.60. The figures are reported by the U.S. Department of Energy and can be found in Haver&#39;s WEEKLY &amp; DAILY databases.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090721d.jpg" width="353">
Crude oil prices also fell last week, but not by as much as gasoline costs. Light sweet crude oil prices (WTI) fell to $61.27 per barrel, off nearly ten dollars from last week&#39;s high of $70.83. Yesterday the one-month futures price for light sweet crude oil recovered and moved up to $63.98 per barrel. Prices had reached a daily high of $72.68.
The ongoing recession lowered the demand for motor gasoline by 2.2% y/y during the last four weeks. The rate of decline has moderated from the 4.8% shortfall this past autumn. Demand for distillate also is off by a sharp 21.5% though residual fuel oil demand has moved higher. Finally, oil remains plentiful as evidenced by a 13.7% y/y rise in inventories of crude oil &amp; petroleum products. The figures on crude oil inventories are available in Haver&#39;s OILWKLY database.
The weakening of natural gas prices stabilized last week at the seven-year low. Last week&#39;s average price of $3.28 per mmbtu (-70.8% y/y) was down by three-quarters from the high reached in early-July of $13.19/mmbtu.

<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">07/20/09</th>
<th scope="col">07/13/09</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>2.46</td>
<td>2.53</td>
<td>-39.4%</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>61.27</td>
<td>61.48</td>
<td>-54.7%</td>
<td>100.16</td>
<td>72.25</td>
<td>66.12</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Recession in the U.S. economy prompted a lower retail price for gasoline last week. The pump price for regular gasoline fell to an average $2.46 per gallon, down twenty-three cents from last month's high. Nevertheless, prices remained [...]

Gasoline Prices Fall Again

<!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>
 
<title></title>

</head>
<body>


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090721a.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The Chicago Federal Reserve Bank reported that its June
National Activity Index rose further to the highest level since July of
last year. The reading of -1.80 was up from May 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.
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_july2009.pdf">here.</a>
The production and income components made the largest positive
contributions to the JUnel CFNAI. Twenty-two of the index components
had a positive influence while 63 made a negative contribution.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090721b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
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 fell during May to its lowest level since
1994. Indicators for the auto, steel, and machinery each fell. The
Chicago Federal Reserve figures are available in Haver's SURVEYS
database.
Today's testimony by Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is available
<a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/DBBB5C9F26B6440AA4A21E104A61577A.htm">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/SURVEYS/@S5/@S503/@S503.HTM">Chicago
Fed</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">June '08</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">CFNAI</td>
<td>-1.80</td>
<td>-2.30</td>
<td>-0.98</td>
<td>-1.76</td>
<td>-0.35</td>
<td>0.05</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; 3-Month Moving
Average</td>
<td>-2.12</td>
<td>-2.65</td>
<td>-1.07</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The Chicago Federal Reserve Bank reported that its June National Activity Index rose further to the highest level since July of last year. The reading of -1.80 was up from May and both figures were higher than the series' low of -3.99 [...]

Chicago Fed Index Indicates That Economic Activity Improved Further

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090721a.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The Chicago Federal Reserve Bank reported that its June
National Activity Index rose further to the highest level since July of
last year. The reading of -1.80 was up from May 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.
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_july2009.pdf">here.</a>
The production and income components made the largest positive
contributions to the JUnel CFNAI. Twenty-two of the index components
had a positive influence while 63 made a negative contribution.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090721b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
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 fell during May to its lowest level since
1994. Indicators for the auto, steel, and machinery each fell. The
Chicago Federal Reserve figures are available in Haver's SURVEYS
database.
Today's testimony by Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is available
<a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/DBBB5C9F26B6440AA4A21E104A61577A.htm">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/SURVEYS/@S5/@S503/@S503.HTM">Chicago
Fed</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">June '08</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">CFNAI</td>
<td>-1.80</td>
<td>-2.30</td>
<td>-0.98</td>
<td>-1.76</td>
<td>-0.35</td>
<td>0.05</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; 3-Month Moving
Average</td>
<td>-2.12</td>
<td>-2.65</td>
<td>-1.07</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Gasoline Prices Fall Again 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> July 21, 2009


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090721c.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Recession in the U.S. economy prompted a lower retail price
for gasoline last week. The pump price for regular gasoline fell
to an average $2.46 per gallon, down twenty-three cents from last
month's high. Nevertheless, prices remained up by eighty-five cents
(53%) from the December low. In the cash market, gasoline prices
yesterday continued to rally off last week's low. At $1.75 per gallon
the price was up from the low of $1.60. The figures are reported by the
U.S. Department of Energy and can be found in Haver's WEEKLY
&amp; DAILY databases.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090721d.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Crude oil prices also fell last week, but
not by as much as gasoline costs. Light sweet crude oil prices (WTI)
fell to $61.27 per barrel, off nearly ten dollars from last week's high
of $70.83. Yesterday the one-month futures price for light sweet crude
oil recovered and moved up to $63.98 per barrel. Prices had reached a
daily high of $72.68.
The ongoing recession lowered the demand for motor gasoline by
2.2% y/y during the last four weeks. The rate of decline has moderated
from the 4.8% shortfall this past autumn. Demand for distillate also is
off by a sharp 21.5% though residual fuel oil demand has moved higher.
Finally, oil remains plentiful as evidenced by a 13.7% y/y rise in
inventories of crude oil &amp; petroleum products. The figures on
crude oil inventories are available in Haver's OILWKLY database.
The weakening of natural gas prices stabilized last week at
the seven-year low. Last week's average price of $3.28 per mmbtu
(-70.8% y/y) was down by three-quarters from the high reached in
early-July of $13.19/mmbtu.

<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">07/20/09</th>
<th scope="col">07/13/09</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>2.46</td>
<td>2.53</td>
<td>-39.4%</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>61.27</td>
<td>61.48</td>
<td>-54.7%</td>
<td>100.16</td>
<td>72.25</td>
<td>66.12</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Weekly Chain Store Sales Remain
Flat 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> July 21, 2009


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090721e.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The strengthening of chain store sales around the July 4th
holiday faded as the month progressed. During the latest week, chain
store sales rose 0.5% but that recovered just half of the prior week's
decline. So far in July sales have increased 0.7% since June after that
month's 0.3% decline and a 0.2% May downtick.
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 sales. The weekly figures are available
in Haver's SURVEYW database.
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.


Prospects for improvement in sales seems limited. The leading
indicator of sales ticked up 0.3% (-2.4% y/y) during the latest week
and it has been flat-to-lower all this year.
Exit Strategies for the Federal Reserve
from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis can be found <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/econ/bullard/PhiladelphiaGIC28june2009FINAL653pm.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/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS
(SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">07/18/09</th>
<th scope="col">07/11/09</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">Total Weekly Chain
Store Sales</td>
<td>491.7</td>
<td>489.4</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Chicago Fed Index Indicates ThatEconomic Activity Improved Further

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/090720g.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Industrial orders in Italy made a slight bounce in May. French
orders fell after a slight bounce in April. Neither shows any sign of
upward momentum and the downward momentum has only just been trimmed if
we compare 3-month growth rates to 12-month growth rates. 
What is interesting is the very different performance in foreign
orders as between Italy and France and Germany. Germany is showing some
very substantial recovery in foreign-sourced orders. But it Italy,
foreign order are falling at an accelerating pace through May. In
France, foreign orders have shown a clear patterns of progress with the
three-month growth rate reduced to an annual pace of -9.7% compared to
-24% Yr/Yr. 
Whatever progress is being experienced in Europe, it is irregular.
Clearly some economies in the Zone are doing better than others despite
the common currency regime - and that is true for sales overseas
underlining the that exchange rates are not the only factor in the
success of foreign sales efforts. The more variance there is across
e-Zone countries in their respective economic performances, the more it
will wear on the fragile e-Zone area where talk of integration is tough
despite member countries efforts to continue to go it alone on fiscal
policy. Europe still has a recession and still has some divisive
political forces to weather. And yet more European &#8216;integration&#8217; lies
ahead. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
Italy Orders<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>

</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">Saar exept m/m</td>
<td>May-09</td>
<td>Apr-09</td>
<td>Mar-09</td>
<td>3-mo</td>
<td>6-mo</td>
<td>12-mo</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-3.6%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>-20.9%</td>
<td>-24.3%</td>
<td>-29.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Foreign</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-2.9%</td>
<td>-9.3%</td>
<td>-39.4%</td>
<td>-27.5%</td>
<td>-33.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Domestic</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-3.9%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-9.3%</td>
<td>-22.7%</td>
<td>-26.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Sales</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>-7.3%</td>
<td>-22.3%</td>
<td>-21.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="7">French Orders</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Saar exept m/m</td>
<td>May-09</td>
<td>Apr-09</td>
<td>Mar-09</td>
<td>3-mo</td>
<td>6-mo</td>
<td>12-mo</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-5.7%</td>
<td>-22.3%</td>
<td>-9.2%</td>
<td>-23.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Foreign</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td>-8.8%</td>
<td>-9.7%</td>
<td>-12.4%</td>
<td>-27.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">IP xConstruct</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>-15.1%</td>
<td>-15.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Industrial orders in Italy made a slight bounce in May. French orders fell after a slight bounce in April. Neither shows any sign of upward momentum and the downward momentum has only just been trimmed if we compare 3-month growth [...]

Industrial Orders Trends Begin To Turn...Ever So Slowly

<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>

 



<img align="left" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090720e.jpg">
The Conference Board&#39;s Index of Leading Economic Indicators continued to suggest a pending economic recovery. The June composite index of leaders rose another 0.7% after gains of 1.3% (upwardly revised) and 1.0% during the prior two months. The combined 3.0% rise during those three months was the strongest since early 2002 while the index itself was at the highest level since last July. The leading index is based on actual reports for eight economic data series. The Conference Board initially estimates two series, orders for consumer goods and orders for capital goods.
For the third straight month, nearly three quarters of the ten components of the leading index increased with the largest positive contributions coming from a steeper yield curve, higher building permits and higher stock prices. The money supply and consumer expectations made slight negative contributions.
Again suggesting that the rate of decline in the economy is slowing were the coincident indicators. They fell 0.2%, about as they have for three consecutive months. These compare with monthly declines of 0.6%-to-1.1% dating back to September. The negative contributions from lower employment and production have eased. The remaining two component series actually rose during June, led by very slight gains in real disposable income and business sales. Over the last ten years there has been a 76% correlation between this y/y change and real GDP.<img align="right" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090720f.jpg">
In a sign that excesses in the U.S. economy are diminishing, the lagging index fell for the sixth month in the last seven. The declines have been paced by a longer duration of unemployment, lower commercial and industrial loans and lower consumer installment credit. The ratio of coincident-to-lagging indicators (a measure of economic excess) rose m/m to the highest level since December.
The Conference Board figures are available in Haver&#39;s BCI database. Visit the Conference Board&#39;s <a href="http://www.conference-board.org">site</a> for coverage of leading indicator series from around the world.
World Economic Outlook Update; Contractionary Forces Receding But Weak Recovery Ahead from the international Monetary Fund can be found <a href="http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/update/02/index.htm">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/BCI/BCI.HTM">Business Cycle Indicators</a> (%)</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">March 6-Month % (AR)</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">Leading</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>1.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Coincident</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>-0.7</td>
<td>-5.9</td>
<td>-0.8</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>2.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Lagging</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-0.8</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>-5.9</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>3.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

The Conference Board's Index of Leading Economic Indicators continued to suggest a pending economic recovery. The June composite index of leaders rose another 0.7% after gains of 1.3% (upwardly revised) and 1.0% during the prior two [...]

U.S. Leading Indicators Rise For A Third Month Signaling Economic Recovery

<!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/090720a.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The current recession has been harshest in the labor market.
Employers look to cut costs as top-line revenues falter. Though the
June unemployment rate of 9.5% was below the 1981-82 peak of 10.8%, the
speed of the rate's recent increase has been notably swift. Today the
rate is up 3.9 percentage points from one year ago. That matches the
record increase for twelve months set during the 1973-75 recession when
the unemployment rate reached its peak of 9.0%. The recent increase is
against a 3.8% decline in employment during the last twelve months and
by 4.4% since the recession began in late-2007.
It's not bad enough that the overall rate of unemployment has
risen so quickly to its current level, but the experience of specific
groups has been most severe. The unemployment rate for men over the
last year has risen a record 4.7 percentage points to a near-record
10.6%. For teenage men, the 12-month increase to an unemployment rate
of 26.2% lags the record increase only slightly while the increase in
the adult male unemployment rate to 9.2% sets a new record, up 4.7
percentage points y/y. The pain for women has been every bit as great.
The 3.0 point, twelve-month increase to an unemployment rate of 8.3%
about matches the record pace. For teenage women, the speed of the
rate's increase to 21.8% also is near the record. Finally, the adult
women unemployment rate is up nearly three points to 7.0%, also near
the record twelve-month increase reached back in 1975.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090720b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Schooling matters when it comes to employability, and the
Labor Department measures individuals' level of education. For those
with a college degree, the labor market has indeed weakened, but not as
significantly as the overall figures have. For these individuals
employment has declined 1.2% during the last year compared to 3.7%
growth as recently as 2007. That weakening has doubled the unemployment
rate, but only to 4.7%. For those with less than a high school diploma,
the story is different and more dire. The unemployment rate more than
doubled to 15.5% as employment fell 6.0% y/y. For high school graduates
without college the unemployment rate also doubled to 15.5%. For those
with at least some college the unemployment rate rate rose but to a
lesser 8.0%. Back to school and back to work: community
colleges and workforce development is a recent article from
the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and it is available <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/investments/0905/Choi_Laura.pdf">
here</a>.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090720c.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The job market figures also indicate great divergence by race
and age. The white teenager unemployment rate jumped sharply last month
to 21.4% from 16.7% for all of last year. Black teens also experienced
joblessness, but at much higher level. Their level of unemployment
touched 37.9% last month and employment over the last year fell 14.2%
versus a lesser 10.7% decline amongst white teens. For adult whites,
unemployment doubled to a below average 8.1% as employment fell 3.2%
y/y while blacks' unemployment rose to 13.7%. Monetary policy
and racial unemployment rates is a 2000
article from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and it can be found <a href="http://www.frbatlanta.org/frbatlanta/filelegacydocs/ACF74.pdf">
here</a>.

Also notable during this recession is how much the
unemployment rate has risen despite slower growth in the labor force.
The labor force growth rate of 0.3% y/y through June is down from 1.4%
during all of 2006. Drop-outs from the labor force, the so-called
discouraged-workers, have been numerous and total 5.9 million, up 26%
since the recession began. Had they remained in the labor force the
unemployment rate would now stand at 13.3%, up 5.4 percentage points
from the recession's start. That compares to the 4.5 percentage point
increase in the official unemployment rate to 9.5%.
The labor department also keeps track of why individuals are
not working full time, or so-called underemployment. At 6.5 million,
the number of those putting in less than 34 hours per week due to slack
work has more than doubled since the recession began. Those who could
only find part-time work also has doubled to 2.2 million. Even the
number of those who found a job and saw it end within a week rose by
two-thirds during the last year to 211,000. In all, the jobless rate
for the unemployed plus workers who are marginally attached plus those
working part-time for economic reasons constitute 16.8% of the labor
force, double the 2006-07 low. A dynamic analysis of recent
changes in the rate of part-time employment is a 1991
working paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and it can be
found <a href="http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Workpaper/1991/wp9120.pdf">
here</a>.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090720d.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Industry employment trends are behind the relative severity of
the employment patterns above. Factory sector jobs have fallen 14.0%
since the recession began and construction jobs are down 17.1%. Even
for the service sector, which typically is somewhat insulated from the
full force behind cyclical downturns which drive employment lower, this
time is different. Private service sector jobs are off 3.6% from their
peak led by an 8.2% decline in professional &amp; business service
jobs. Jobs in the financial services group also have fallen a severe
5.9%, retail jobs are down 5.1% while government payrolls are up just
slightly.

<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/@S4/@S4.HTM">Civilian
Unemployment Rate</a> (%)</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;June '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">Total</td>
<td>9.5</td>
<td>9.4</td>
<td>5.6</td>
<td>5.8</td>
<td>4.6</td>
<td>4.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; By Sex</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Female</td>
<td>8.3</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>5.3</td>
<td>5.4</td>
<td>4.5</td>
<td>4.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Male</td>
<td>10.6</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>6.2</td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td>4.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; By Age</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
16-19</td>
<td>24.0</td>
<td>22.7</td>
<td>18.8</td>
<td>18.7</td>
<td>15.7</td>
<td>15.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
20 &amp; Over</td>
<td>8.9</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>5.2</td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>4.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; By Educational
Attainment</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Less Than High School</td>
<td>15.5</td>
<td>15.5</td>
<td>8.9</td>
<td>9.0</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>6.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Bachelors Degree or Higher</td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>2.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; By Race &amp; Age</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
White</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>5.2</td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
16-19</td>
<td>21.4</td>
<td>20.3</td>
<td>17.0</td>
<td>16.7</td>
<td>13.9</td>
<td>13.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
20 &amp; Over</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>4.6</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>3.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Black or African American</td>
<td>14.7</td>
<td>14.9</td>
<td>9.4</td>
<td>10.1</td>
<td>8.3</td>
<td>8.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
16-19</td>
<td>37.9</td>
<td>39.4</td>
<td>29.8</td>
<td>31.2</td>
<td>29.4</td>
<td>29.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
20 &amp; Over</td>
<td>&nbsp;13.7</td>
<td>13.8</td>
<td>8.5</td>
<td>9.1</td>
<td>7.2</td>
<td>7.9</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The current recession has been harshest in the labor market. Employers look to cut costs as top-line revenues falter. Though the June unemployment rate of 9.5% was below the 1981-82 peak of 10.8%, the speed of the rate's recent [...]

U.S. Unemployment Rates Rise Sharply And Rapidly For All

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090720a.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The current recession has been harshest in the labor market.
Employers look to cut costs as top-line revenues falter. Though the
June unemployment rate of 9.5% was below the 1981-82 peak of 10.8%, the
speed of the rate's recent increase has been notably swift. Today the
rate is up 3.9 percentage points from one year ago. That matches the
record increase for twelve months set during the 1973-75 recession when
the unemployment rate reached its peak of 9.0%. The recent increase is
against a 3.8% decline in employment during the last twelve months and
by 4.4% since the recession began in late-2007.
It's not bad enough that the overall rate of unemployment has
risen so quickly to its current level, but the experience of specific
groups has been most severe. The unemployment rate for men over the
last year has risen a record 4.7 percentage points to a near-record
10.6%. For teenage men, the 12-month increase to an unemployment rate
of 26.2% lags the record increase only slightly while the increase in
the adult male unemployment rate to 9.2% sets a new record, up 4.7
percentage points y/y. The pain for women has been every bit as great.
The 3.0 point, twelve-month increase to an unemployment rate of 8.3%
about matches the record pace. For teenage women, the speed of the
rate's increase to 21.8% also is near the record. Finally, the adult
women unemployment rate is up nearly three points to 7.0%, also near
the record twelve-month increase reached back in 1975.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090720b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Schooling matters when it comes to employability, and the
Labor Department measures individuals' level of education. For those
with a college degree, the labor market has indeed weakened, but not as
significantly as the overall figures have. For these individuals
employment has declined 1.2% during the last year compared to 3.7%
growth as recently as 2007. That weakening has doubled the unemployment
rate, but only to 4.7%. For those with less than a high school diploma,
the story is different and more dire. The unemployment rate more than
doubled to 15.5% as employment fell 6.0% y/y. For high school graduates
without college the unemployment rate also doubled to 15.5%. For those
with at least some college the unemployment rate rate rose but to a
lesser 8.0%. Back to school and back to work: community
colleges and workforce development is a recent article from
the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and it is available <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/investments/0905/Choi_Laura.pdf">
here</a>.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090720c.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The job market figures also indicate great divergence by race
and age. The white teenager unemployment rate jumped sharply last month
to 21.4% from 16.7% for all of last year. Black teens also experienced
joblessness, but at much higher level. Their level of unemployment
touched 37.9% last month and employment over the last year fell 14.2%
versus a lesser 10.7% decline amongst white teens. For adult whites,
unemployment doubled to a below average 8.1% as employment fell 3.2%
y/y while blacks' unemployment rose to 13.7%. Monetary policy
and racial unemployment rates is a 2000
article from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and it can be found <a href="http://www.frbatlanta.org/frbatlanta/filelegacydocs/ACF74.pdf">
here</a>.

Also notable during this recession is how much the
unemployment rate has risen despite slower growth in the labor force.
The labor force growth rate of 0.3% y/y through June is down from 1.4%
during all of 2006. Drop-outs from the labor force, the so-called
discouraged-workers, have been numerous and total 5.9 million, up 26%
since the recession began. Had they remained in the labor force the
unemployment rate would now stand at 13.3%, up 5.4 percentage points
from the recession's start. That compares to the 4.5 percentage point
increase in the official unemployment rate to 9.5%.
The labor department also keeps track of why individuals are
not working full time, or so-called underemployment. At 6.5 million,
the number of those putting in less than 34 hours per week due to slack
work has more than doubled since the recession began. Those who could
only find part-time work also has doubled to 2.2 million. Even the
number of those who found a job and saw it end within a week rose by
two-thirds during the last year to 211,000. In all, the jobless rate
for the unemployed plus workers who are marginally attached plus those
working part-time for economic reasons constitute 16.8% of the labor
force, double the 2006-07 low. A dynamic analysis of recent
changes in the rate of part-time employment is a 1991
working paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and it can be
found <a href="http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Workpaper/1991/wp9120.pdf">
here</a>.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090720d.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Industry employment trends are behind the relative severity of
the employment patterns above. Factory sector jobs have fallen 14.0%
since the recession began and construction jobs are down 17.1%. Even
for the service sector, which typically is somewhat insulated from the
full force behind cyclical downturns which drive employment lower, this
time is different. Private service sector jobs are off 3.6% from their
peak led by an 8.2% decline in professional &amp; business service
jobs. Jobs in the financial services group also have fallen a severe
5.9%, retail jobs are down 5.1% while government payrolls are up just
slightly.

<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/@S4/@S4.HTM">Civilian
Unemployment Rate</a> (%)</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;June '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">Total</td>
<td>9.5</td>
<td>9.4</td>
<td>5.6</td>
<td>5.8</td>
<td>4.6</td>
<td>4.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; By Sex</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Female</td>
<td>8.3</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>5.3</td>
<td>5.4</td>
<td>4.5</td>
<td>4.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Male</td>
<td>10.6</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>6.2</td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td>4.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; By Age</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
16-19</td>
<td>24.0</td>
<td>22.7</td>
<td>18.8</td>
<td>18.7</td>
<td>15.7</td>
<td>15.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
20 &amp; Over</td>
<td>8.9</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>5.2</td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>4.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; By Educational
Attainment</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Less Than High School</td>
<td>15.5</td>
<td>15.5</td>
<td>8.9</td>
<td>9.0</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>6.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Bachelors Degree or Higher</td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>2.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; By Race &amp; Age</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
White</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>5.2</td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
16-19</td>
<td>21.4</td>
<td>20.3</td>
<td>17.0</td>
<td>16.7</td>
<td>13.9</td>
<td>13.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
20 &amp; Over</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>4.6</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>3.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Black or African American</td>
<td>14.7</td>
<td>14.9</td>
<td>9.4</td>
<td>10.1</td>
<td>8.3</td>
<td>8.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
16-19</td>
<td>37.9</td>
<td>39.4</td>
<td>29.8</td>
<td>31.2</td>
<td>29.4</td>
<td>29.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
20 &amp; Over</td>
<td>&nbsp;13.7</td>
<td>13.8</td>
<td>8.5</td>
<td>9.1</td>
<td>7.2</td>
<td>7.9</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Leading Indicators Rise For A
Third Month Signaling Economic Recovery 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> July 20, 2009


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090720e.jpg" align="left" border="0">
The Conference Board's Index of Leading Economic Indicators
continued to suggest a pending economic recovery. The June composite
index of leaders rose another 0.7% after gains of 1.3% (upwardly
revised) and 1.0% during the prior two months. The combined 3.0% rise
during those three months was the strongest since early 2002 while the
index itself was at the highest level since last July. The leading
index is based on actual reports for eight economic data series. The
Conference Board initially estimates two series, orders for consumer
goods and orders for capital goods.
For the third straight month, nearly three quarters of the ten
components of the leading index increased with the largest positive
contributions coming from a steeper yield curve, higher building
permits and higher stock prices. The money supply and consumer
expectations made slight negative contributions.
Again suggesting that the rate of decline in the economy is
slowing were the coincident indicators. They fell 0.2%, about as they
have for three consecutive months. These compare with monthly declines
of 0.6%-to-1.1% dating back to September. The negative contributions
from lower employment and production have eased. The remaining two
component series actually rose during June, led by very slight gains in
real disposable income and business sales. Over the last ten years
there has been a 76% correlation between this y/y change and real GDP.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090720f.jpg" align="right" border="0">
In a sign that excesses in the U.S. economy are diminishing,
the lagging index fell for the sixth month in the last seven. The
declines have been paced by a longer duration of unemployment, lower
commercial and industrial loans and lower consumer installment credit.
The ratio of coincident-to-lagging indicators (a measure of economic
excess) rose m/m to the highest level since December.
The Conference Board figures are available in Haver's BCI
database. Visit the Conference Board's <a href="http://www.conference-board.org">site</a> for
coverage of leading indicator series from around the world.



World Economic Outlook Update; Contractionary
Forces Receding But Weak Recovery Ahead from the
international Monetary Fund can be found <a href="http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/update/02/index.htm">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/BCI/BCI.HTM">Business
Cycle Indicators</a> (%)</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">March 6-Month % (AR)</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">Leading</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>1.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Coincident</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>-0.7</td>
<td>-5.9</td>
<td>-0.8</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>2.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Lagging</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-0.8</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>-5.9</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>3.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Industrial Orders Trends Begin To
Turn...Ever So Slowly 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> July 20, 2009


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090720g.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Industrial orders in Italy made a slight bounce in May. French
orders fell after a slight bounce in April. Neither shows any sign of
upward momentum and the downward momentum has only just been trimmed if
we compare 3-month growth rates to 12-month growth rates. 
 

What is interesting is the very different performance in
foreign
orders as between Italy and France and Germany. Germany is showing some
very substantial recovery in foreign-sourced orders. But it Italy,
foreign order are falling at an accelerating pace through May. In
France, foreign orders have shown a clear patterns of progress with the
three-month growth rate reduced to an annual pace of -9.7% compared to
-24% Yr/Yr. 
 

Whatever progress is being experienced in Europe, it is
irregular.
Clearly some economies in the Zone are doing better than others despite
the common currency regime - and that is true for sales overseas
underlining the that exchange rates are not the only factor in the
success of foreign sales efforts. The more variance there is across
e-Zone countries in their respective economic performances, the more it
will wear on the fragile e-Zone area where talk of integration is tough
despite member countries efforts to continue to go it alone on fiscal
policy. Europe still has a recession and still has some divisive
political forces to weather. And yet more European &#8216;integration&#8217; lies
ahead. 
 


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
</table>
Italy Orders
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">Saar exept m/m</td>
<td>May-09</td>
<td>Apr-09</td>
<td>Mar-09</td>
<td>3-mo</td>
<td>6-mo</td>
<td>12-mo</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-3.6%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>-20.9%</td>
<td>-24.3%</td>
<td>-29.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Foreign</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-2.9%</td>
<td>-9.3%</td>
<td>-39.4%</td>
<td>-27.5%</td>
<td>-33.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Domestic</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-3.9%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-9.3%</td>
<td>-22.7%</td>
<td>-26.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Sales</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>-7.3%</td>
<td>-22.3%</td>
<td>-21.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="7">French Orders</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Saar exept m/m</td>
<td>May-09</td>
<td>Apr-09</td>
<td>Mar-09</td>
<td>3-mo</td>
<td>6-mo</td>
<td>12-mo</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-5.7%</td>
<td>-22.3%</td>
<td>-9.2%</td>
<td>-23.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Foreign</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td>-8.8%</td>
<td>-9.7%</td>
<td>-12.4%</td>
<td>-27.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">IP xConstruct</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>-15.1%</td>
<td>-15.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

U.S. Unemployment Rates RiseSharply And Rapidly For All

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

Winnie Tapasanun

260116R23.jpg

260116S23.jpg

Industrial production (IP) rose a more-than-expected 0.4% m/m in December following a 0.4% rise in November (+0.2% initially) and a 0.3% decline in October (-0.1% previously), data from the Federal Reserve Board showed. December marked the third m/m gain in four months. A 0.1% m/m December increase had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The year-on-year growth rate slowed to 2.0% in December, the lowest since September, from 2.5% in November; this compared with a 0.3% y/y decline in December 2024. The December IP index at 102.3 was 3.1% above a low of 99.2 in January 2024. IP rose 0.2% q/q in Q4 2025 after a 0.6% q/q gain in Q3 2025, increasing at a 0.7% annualized rate following a 2.3% Q3 annualized pace. In 2025, IP rose 1.3% after declines of 0.7% in 2024 and 0.2% in 2023.

By **industry groups**, manufacturing production grew 0.2% (2.0% y/y) in December, up for the third time in four months, following a 0.3% increase in November (0.0% initially) and a 0.6% drop in October (-0.4% previously). Durable goods production edged up 0.1% (3.1% y/y) in December, the first m/m increase since September, after a 0.1% downtick in November. Within durables, the following categories rose m/m in December, including output rises of 2.4% (3.5% y/y) in primary metals, 1.7% (1.3% y/y) in electrical equipment, appliances & components, 1.5% (17.2% y/y) in aerospace & miscellaneous transportation equipment, 0.8% (-2.2% y/y) in furniture & related products, 0.2% (4.8% y/y) in machinery, and 0.1% (7.4% y/y) in computer & electronic products. Notably, aircraft & parts production climbed 2.1% (30.0% y/y), the third m/m increase in four months, reversing a 2.1% November drop. To the downside, the following durable goods categories fell m/m in December, including drops of 2.3% (-5.5% y/y) in wood products, 1.1% (-2.8% y/y) in motor vehicles & parts, 1.1% (-1.0% y/y) in nonmetallic mineral products, 0.1% (+2.6% y/y) in fabricated metal products, and 0.1% (-3.7% y/y) in miscellaneous durables goods.

Nondurable goods production increased 0.3% (1.0% y/y) in December, the third m/m gain in four months, after a 0.8% rebound in November. The December increase reflected m/m output rises of 1.8% (2.1% y/y) in petroleum & coal products, 0.5% (1.9% y/y) in food, beverages & tobacco, and 0.3% (-0.2% y/y) in plastics & rubber products. In contrast, the following nondurable goods categories declined m/m in December, including output drops of 1.3% (-0.8% y/y) in textiles & product mills, 1.1% (-0.5% y/y) in apparel & leather goods, 0.3% (-3.1% y/y) in paper, 0.3% (-3.4% y/y) in printing & related support activities, and 0.1% (+1.6% y/y) in chemicals.

Utilities output recovered 2.6% (2.3% y/y) in December, the third m/m rise in four months, following a 0.3% decline in November (-0.4% initially), reflecting a 1.2% rebound (1.3% y/y) in electric utilities output and a 12.0% jump (8.7% y/y) in natural gas utilities output. Mining activity, however, fell 0.7% (+1.7% y/y), the third m/m slide in four months, after an unrevised 1.7% November gain.

By **market groups**, business equipment output advanced 0.8% (10.1% y/y) in December, up for the third time in four months, after a 0.3% increase in November. Consumer goods output rose 0.7% (0.7% y/y) after a 0.7% November rebound, reflecting a 0.7% decline (-3.5% y/y) in durable consumer goods and a 1.1% gain (1.8% y/y) in nondurable consumer goods. Materials production grew 0.2% (1.7% y/y), the third m/m increase in four months, after a 0.5% November rise. In contrast, construction supplies production fell 0.3% (+1.3% y/y) in December, the second m/m fall in three months, reversing a 0.3% increase in November.

In **special classifications**, factory output of selected high-tech industries rose 0.7% (10.9% y/y) in December, the third successive m/m rise, following a downwardly revised 0.5% gain in November (+1.1% initially). Manufacturing production excluding selected high-tech industries grew 0.2% (1.7% y/y) in December, the third m/m gain in four months, after a 0.3% increase in November. Meanwhile, manufacturing production excluding selected high-tech and motor vehicles & parts rose 0.3% (2.1% y/y), also up for the third time in four months, after a 0.4% November increase.

Capacity utilization rose to 76.3% in December, the highest since July, from 76.1% in November (76.0% initially). The Action Economics Forecast Survey forecasted 76.0%. The December reading was 3.2 percentage points below its long-run (1972–2024) average. Manufacturing capacity utilization held at 75.6% in December and November (75.4% previously); the December rate was 2.6 percentage points below its long-run average.

Industrial production and capacity data are in Haver’s **USECON** database. Additional detail on production and capacity utilization can be found in the **IP** database. The expectations figures come from the **AS1REPNA** database.

260116T23.jpg

260116U23.jpg

- December IP +0.4% (+2.0% y/y), third m/m rise in four months, led by a 2.6% gain in utilities.
- Manufacturing +0.2% (+2.0% y/y), w/ durables +0.1% and nondurables +0.3%.
- Selected high-tech +0.7%, third consecutive m/m rise; motor vehicles -1.1%, fourth straight m/m fall.
- Mining -0.7%, third m/m decline in four months.
- Key categories in market groups mostly increase.
- Capacity utilization at a five-month-high 76.3%; mfg. capacity utilization steady at 75.6%.

U.S. Industrial Production Increases in December on Utilities Rebound

260116E.jpg

The European Monetary Union has concluded a year of weak-to-moderate growth with inflation largely toeing the line. As always, the inflation picture is more complicated than a simple statement. When we look at inflation, we look at the headline, we look at the core, to make sure that the volatile food & energy elements aren't dominating the index, and then we look across some of the main participants to see if the trend for inflation is shared broadly across the largest countries in the Monetary Union. When we apply those kinds of standards, the grading for the year is reduced. However, based on the headline alone, it was an excellent year for the ECB.

**Headline Inflation in 2025**
Headline inflation in 2025 rose by 2%, exactly on the target of the European Central Bank. It rose over six months at a 2% annual rate and then concluded the year over the last three months, rising at a 1.6% annual rate with some margin below the target set by the central bank itself.

**Country Headline Inflation Trends**
On a country basis, the performance is not nearly as good. While year-on-year results look pretty good, with Germany at 2%, France at 0.7% and Italy at 1.3%, Spain comes in at 3.1%. So the three largest monetary union economies come in at or below 2% with Spain as a rogue observation. When we look further at the sequence of inflation within the year, we see Germany at 2% over 12 months, rising to 3.1% over 6 months, rising further to 4% over 3 months. Inflation is accelerating at the end of the year even as Germany hits the target! This is something to keep an eye on. For France, the inflation rate also accelerates slightly but stays below the bar of 2% over three months, six months, and 12 months. For Italy, inflation is decelerating from 1.3% over 12 months to -0.3% over six months, and then inflation in Italy is contracting at a 1.9% annual rate over three months. Spanish inflation shows clear trouble with a 3.1% 12-month pace, rising to 4.6% at an annual rate over six months, and rising further to 5.9% at an annual rate over three months.

**Core Inflation**
For core inflation, the Monetary Union’s consolidated numbers are not yet compiled. However, for the four largest economies, we do have core or ex-energy inflation. For Germany, it's inflation excluding energy. On that basis, German inflation is 2.2% over 12 months, it rises to 2.7% over six months, then falls back to a 2% annual pace over three months All-in-all not a bad performance. For France, core inflation is below 2% over 12 months, six months, and three months. In Italy, once again, we see inflation decelerating: Italian inflation is 2% over 12 months - right on the ECB target. It falls to a 1.3% annual rate over six months and then falls further to a 0.3% annual rate over three months. For Spain, the core has another very difficult story for the Monetary Union. Inflation is 2.7% over 12 months, it rises to 3.1% over six months and stays at an annual rate of about 3% over three months. This is too high and it looks stubborn, particularly because it is the core.

260116.jpg

**Across the Big Four**
On balance, what we see is that the ECB grades-out well, based on headline inflation and based on its sequential performance for the European economic union as a whole. But large countries, show headline inflation building some steam particularly in the largest economy, Germany, and in Spain, the smallest of the BIG-4 economies. Inflation is once again mixed in the Monetary Union with German and Spanish inflation too high and with French and Italian inflation running either at or below the 2% mark and with Italy showing a tendency towards weaker prices for both the headline and the core. The change in prices over these various periods shows inflation gets the most help from oil prices over 12 months where Brent, measured in euros, falls by 22.6%; over six months Brent prices fall by 37% at an annual rate; and over three months Brent oil prices are unchanged, so that the headline isn't getting help at all from oil prices except through lagged effects.

**Summing Up**
Meanwhile, there are some signs of stronger growth taking root in Europe, especially in Germany with better industrial production being logged and with German industrial production looking significantly stronger than the PMI data, suggesting that perhaps PMI data are missing something about the rebound that is developing. Nonetheless, it was a good year for inflation and the ECB; however, it doesn't exactly end the year in the catbird’s seat. On the other hand, it does not end the year behind the curve. There are scattered pressures and needs among member countries which always makes monetary policy difficult. When some countries need higher interest rates and others need lower interest rates, the ECB is in a difficult spot. Clearly, Spain and Germany are experiencing different phenomenon than France and Italy. That could be the policy challenge for the year ahead.

Europe

Big Four Inflation in EMU 2025-Final

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

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.