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" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401e.jpg">
The outplacement firm of Challenger, Grey &amp; Christmas reported that March job cut announcements eased for the second month to 150,411 following 186,350 layoffs during February. Both of the figures were down from the cycle high of 241,749 reached in January. Challenger also reported that announced hiring plans picked up somewhat from February.
Announcements of job cuts in the pharmaceutical industry were a strong 17,796 which was the second most on record. Announcements in the electronics industry also were strong. Another 11,550 jobs were shed and that was near the rate of decline during the prior three months.
Job cut announcements in the automotive sector eased sharply to 6,806 after a huge jump during February and the financial business shed 8,651 jobs. Employment in the retail industry fell 3,821 after the 18,759 February cut. Employment in the industrial goods industry also fell a more moderate 8,787. The computer industry shed 5,290 after the 3,960 February cutback.
During the last ten years there has been a 67% (inverse) correlation between the three month moving average of announced job cuts and the three month change payroll employment.
Job cut announcements differ from layoffs. Many are achieved through attrition, early retirement or just never occur.
The Challenger figures are available in Haver&#39;s SURVEYS database.

<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/@S3/@S301/@S301.HTM">Challenger, Gray &amp; Christmas</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</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">Announced Job Cuts</td>
<td>150,411</td>
<td>186,350</td>
<td>180.7%</td>
<td>1,223,993</td>
<td>768,264</td>
<td>839,822</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The outplacement firm of Challenger, Grey & Christmas reported that March job cut announcements eased for the second month to 150,411 following 186,350 layoffs during February. Both of the figures were down from the cycle high of [...]

Challenger Layoffs Ease Slightly Second Month

<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/090401c.jpg" width="353">
The March composite index of activity in the manufacturing sector from the Institute for Supply Management improved slightly to 36.3 from 35.8 in February. Though the latest figure was still near the lowest level since the recession year of 1980, the index has remained in a range of 33 to 37 during the last five months. The break-even level for this diffusion index of factory sector activity is a level of 50.
During the last twenty years there has been a 72% correlation between the level of the composite index and the three-month growth in factory sector industrial production. The latest reading of the composite index suggests that the recent 10% rate of decline in industrial output will continue.
It is appropriate to correlate the ISM index level with factory sector 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="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401d.jpg" width="353">
Improvement in the new orders index has been sharp since its December low as 28% of survey participants reported higher orders versus a low of 5%. Even the export order index improved modestly to a still low 39.0 versus the December reading of 35.5. Nevertheless, it remained near the lowest level in this index&#39;s short twenty year history. 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.
The production component was about unchanged after sharp improvement in January and February. Offsetting these gains were sharp declines in the vendor deliveries index to the lowest level since 1989. The inventory index was weak and fell to the lowest level since 1982.
The separate index of prices paid improved slightly but it remained near the record low. 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.
The ISM data is available in Haver&#39;s USECON database.
How Will a Credit Crunch Affect Small Business Finance? from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is available <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2009/el2009-09.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/SURVEYS/@S2/@S201/@S201.HTM">ISM Mfg</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">March &#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>36.3</td>
<td>35.8</td>
<td>49.0</td>
<td>45.5</td>
<td>51.1</td>
<td>53.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; New Orders Index</td>
<td>41.2</td>
<td>33.1</td>
<td>47.1</td>
<td>42.1</td>
<td>54.3</td>
<td>55.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Employment Index</td>
<td>28.1</td>
<td>26.1</td>
<td>49.3</td>
<td>43.2</td>
<td>50.5</td>
<td>51.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid Index (NSA)</td>
<td>31.0</td>
<td>29.0</td>
<td>83.5</td>
<td>66.5</td>
<td>64.6</td>
<td>65.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The March composite index of activity in the manufacturing sector from the Institute for Supply Management improved slightly to 36.3 from 35.8 in February. Though the latest figure was still near the lowest level since the recession [...]

Rise In ISM Index Suggests Factory Sector Stabilization

<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/090401a.jpg" width="353">
According to the payroll processor ADP in the latest National Employment Report, private nonfarm payrolls fell 742,000 last month after a 706,000 decline. The February figure was revised from the initial estimate of a 697,000 drop. The latest reading was the fourteenth consecutive monthly decline. Moreover, the annualized rate of decline in payrolls accelerated to 7.2% during the last three months, a record for the series which dates back only to 2001. Last month medium sized payrolls fell 330,000 (-4.5% y/y) followed by a 284,000 (-3.3% y/y) worker decline in small sized payrolls. Large payrolls fell by 128,000 (-4.7% y/y).
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics will report payroll employment this Friday. For comparison, February&#39;s 706,000 worker decline (-3.4% y/y) in ADP&#39;s measure of private nonfarm payrolls was accompanied by a 660,000 worker decline (-3.7% y/y) in the BLS measure of private sector payrolls. According to ADP and Macro Advisers, the correlation between the monthly percentage change in the ADP estimate and that in the BLS data is 0.90.
ADP reported that weakness in the goods producing sector resulted in 327,000 fewer jobs last month (-10.1% y/y). Medium sized payrolls fell 152,000 (-10.5% y/y) followed by a 111,000 (-9.3% y/y) shortfall in small sized payrolls. Large payrolls fell 64,000 (-10.5% y/y). In the manufacturing sector alone, payrolls fell 206,000 (-10.1% y/y). It has fallen in almost every month since 2001.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090401b.jpg" width="353">
Employment in the service producing industry continued to fall sharply. The 415,000 (-2.6% y/y) decline was the twelfth consecutive monthly decline. Medium sized service payrolls fell 178,000 (-2.9% y/y) and small sized payrolls were off 173,000 (-2.2% y/y). Large service producing payrolls dropped by 64,000 (-3.0% y/y).
ADP compiled the estimate from its database of individual companies&#39; payroll information. Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, the St. Louis economic consulting firm, developed the methodology for transforming the raw data into an economic indicator.
The ADP National Employment Report data is maintained in Haver&#39;s USECON database; historical figures date back to December 2000. The figures in this report cover only private sector jobs and exclude employment in the public sector, which rose an average 11,083 during the last twelve months. 
The full ADP National Employment Report can be found <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/pdf/final_report_march_09.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/FINAL_Report_june_09.pdf">here</a>, and the ADP methodology is explained <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/ADPNERMethodology.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/ADPNERMethodology.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/USECON/@EB/@EB25/@EB25.HTM">LAXEPA@USECON</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</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">Nonfarm Private Payroll Employment (m/m Chg.)</td>
<td>-742,000</td>
<td>-706,000</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

According to the payroll processor ADP in the latest National Employment Report, private nonfarm payrolls fell 742,000 last month after a 706,000 decline. The February figure was revised from the initial estimate of a 697,000 drop. [...]

ADP Report: Payroll Employment Down Another 742,000

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/090331i.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Fourth quarter Turkish Gross Domestic Product, released today,
declined on a seasonally adjusted basis 4.9% from the third quarter
continuing the declines of 3.6% and 1.7% in the second and third
quarters, respectively. For the year as a whole, GDP increased only
1.1%, the lowest annual increase since 2001.
There were two factors having a positive effect on GDP in the
last three quarters of the year that were actually suggesting weakness
in the economy. The decline in imports of 1.4 billion lira from
7.6.billion lira in the first quarter to 6.2 billion lira in the last
quarter affected GDP positively, but it suggested weakness in consumer
and business demand. The other was the increase in inventories in the
first three quarters of the year, which, again, had a positive effect
on GDP, but was beginning to reflect the piling up of unsold goods
rather than the piling up of goods in response to vigorous demand. The
major factors affecting GDP--consumption expenditures, gross fixed
capital formation, exports and changes in stocks--are show in the first
chart.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090331j.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The magnitude of the fourth quarter decline in total GDP was
largely due to a sharp decline in stocks as can be seen in the second
chart which shows the changes in consumption expenditures, gross
capital formation, exports, and stocks.
Inflation, in Turkey, as measured by the year to year increase
in the GDP deflator rose steadily through the year and was 10.1% in the
fourth quarter. In spite of the rise in inflation, the Central Bank of
Turkey concluded that the weakness in the economy was more important
than inflation and reduced its Policy rate--the overnight borrowing
rate--from 16.25% in October to 10.50% currently.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">TURKEY
ACCOUNT (100 Mil Yen)</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Q2&nbsp; 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Q1 08&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total GDP (NSA) Y/Y
%chg&nbsp;</td>
<td> -6.17</td>
<td> 1.19</td>
<td> 2.75</td>
<td> 7.33</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Household Consumption</td>
<td>-4.62</td>
<td>-1.25</td>
<td>1.54</td>
<td>6.07</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Gross Fixed Capital
Formation</td>
<td>-17.48</td>
<td>-6.89</td>
<td>-1.16</td>
<td>9.55</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Imports</td>
<td>-23.05</td>
<td>-2.79</td>
<td>2.25</td>
<td>14.94</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Exports&nbsp;</td>
<td>8.21</td>
<td>3.59</td>
<td>38.7</td>
<td>13.27</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Stocks</td>
<td>-1613535</td>
<td>1286937</td>
<td>92754</td>
<td>-69591</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total GDP (SA) Y/Y %chg</td>
<td>-4.87</td>
<td>-1.70</td>
<td>-3.58</td>
<td>4.10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Household Consumption</td>
<td>-2.55</td>
<td>-1.18</td>
<td>-1.57</td>
<td>0.67</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Gross Fixed Capital
Formation</td>
<td>-8.22</td>
<td>-3.36</td>
<td>-8.41</td>
<td>1.16</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Imports</td>
<td>-18.02</td>
<td>-0.11</td>
<td>-8.86</td>
<td>2.80</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Exports</td>
<td>-8.13</td>
<td>-2.62</td>
<td>-7.87</td>
<td>11.37</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Stocks</td>
<td>-824576</td>
<td>360674</td>
<td>233648</td>
<td>426821</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Fourth quarter Turkish Gross Domestic Product, released today, declined on a seasonally adjusted basis 4.9% from the third quarter continuing the declines of 3.6% and 1.7% in the second and third quarters, respectively. For the year [...]

Turkey -- Another Emerging Economy Reports A Dismal 4Th Quarter Gross Domestic Product

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/090331h.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">Fat Chance&#8230; 
The EMU FLASH HICP is at an all time low skinny 0.6% gain
Yr/Yr. If it were human we&#8217;d say it is anorexic. Italy also got on the
board with a weak HICP, posting the lowest reading since &#8216;Ed Sullivan&#8217;
and &#8216;Leave it to Beaver&#8217; were first run shows. (roughly 1968). 
 

Gooey Good News 
Despite al this gooey good news the pace of inflation&#8217;s drop
actually is slowing, not speeding up. The Yr/Yr at 0.6% is higher than
the six month pace of -1.4% but then over three-months the pace
flattens at 0%. Core inflation is still stepping down. But we know what
is going on and what is driving these trends. Headline inflation is
driven by food and energy and in this cycle energy has taken the wheel,
not some deity. Spot oil prices had collapsed but the have climbed back
to the vicinity of $50.bbl. It is hard to tell where oil goes short
term, but prices are the up from their lowest, meaning headline
inflation will perform that same magic trick. 
 

Peak oil not an issue now&#8230; 
In broader terms inflation is clearly under control. When the
world economy grows again there will once again be all those questions
about peak oil or not. China is a new factor underpinning demand. But
we can put those questions off for a while. 
 

Reality bites and the OECD worries 
For now, and for some time to come, inflation seems to be
under control. The big news on our plate is the G-20 meeting and how
policy will respond to the current diverse challenges. The OECD
introduced a series of forecasts ahead of this meeting that have gotten
even glummer. The OECD is urging more stimulus as a result. All this is
going to put more pressure on the ECB to move rates lower, especially
with Euro-stimulus policy in the shape it&#8217;s in. The summit seems to be
a done deal as euro-stubbornness has won out. In addition French
intransigence is trying to make headway as France has threatened to
boycott if the regulation proposals are not enacted. Summit policy is
always pre-determined but it isn&#8217;t always this clear. 
 

Policy options are alive&#8230;but not well&#8230;not even good 
All in all it is not really surprising with such economic
weakness to find inflation is under control. That development puts more
leeway in the hands of policymakers. But what happens when they refuse
to take up the opportunity? Europe admits its 200bln euro plan will not
have much impact until 2010. That was Junker&#8217;s contribution to the
discussion today as the OECD ramped up the bad news. The US seems to be
living in a different world where action is required while Europe sits
back to watch. Some of this is that Europe already has a better social
safety net than the US. But that is &#8216;cushion&#8217; and what the world needs
now is &#8216;stimulus,&#8217; sweet stimulus. But it&#8217;s not happening in London.
London 2009 will make the same mistake as London 1977. It will reject a
chance for more stimulus and stretch out the pain. If London 1977 is a
learning experience, it launched Bonn 1978 and the result was that too
much stimulus was enacted too late. I hope that is not our true path.
On the other hand part of me says, &#8216;Fat chance&#8217;. 
 





<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8" scope="col">Trends in
EMU HICP: Flash Index</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="3">% mo/mo</td>
<td colspan="4">% SAAR</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Mar-09</td>
<td>Feb-09</td>
<td>Jan-09</td>
<td>3-Mo</td>
<td>6-Mo</td>
<td>12-Mo</td>
<td>Yr Ago</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">EMU-13</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Core</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Goods&nbsp;</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>-6.3%</td>
<td>-3.2%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Services</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="8">&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol" colspan="8">HICP</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Spain</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-2.4%</td>
<td>-2.7%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">Core excl Food Energy
&amp; Alcohol</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Spain</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="8">Blue shaded area data trail by one
month</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

</body></html>

Fat Chance… The EMU FLASH HICP is at an all time low skinny 0.6% gain Yr/Yr. If it were human we’d say it is anorexic. Italy also got on the board with a weak HICP, posting the lowest reading since ‘Ed Sullivan’ and ‘Leave it to [...]

Flash Dance - Inflation Waltzes to New Lows as Risk Soars to Dizzying Heights

<!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/090331e.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The Conference Board reported that its March index of consumer
confidence stabilized this month near its record low level reached
during February. The reading of 26.0 was roughly stable with February
but it left confidence three-quarters lower than the July 2007 peak.
The latest figure was slightly lower than Consensus expectations.
The Conference Board data can be found in Haver's CBDB database.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090331f.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">During
the last ten years there has been an 86% correlation between the level
of consumer confidence and the y/y change in real consumer spending.
Consumers' economic outlook improved slightly as indicated by a
higher expectations index, but the latest reading made up little of
February's more than one-third decline from January. The latest figure
also was off by more than one-half from last February. The percentage
of respondents expecting business conditions to worsen in six months
was little changed at 39.1%, near the highest since 1974. Just 9.1%
expected improvement in conditions. More jobs were expected by only
7.1% of respondents. As a result of that jobs outlook a near-record
23.9% foresaw less income. That was versus 15.0% last year and just
8.6% in 2007.
The present conditions index added 3.6% to the more-than one
quarter February drop. It remained off more than three-quarters from a
year earlier. Jobs were seen as hard to get by 48.7% of respondents,
the highest (by just a bit) since 1992 and jobs were seen as plentiful
by only 4.6%. Business conditions were seen as good by just 6.8% and
that matched the 1991 low. Those who thought conditions were bad rose
to 51.1%, the highest since 1983. <img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090331g.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Expectations for the inflation rate in twelve months have been roughly
stable since November at 5.9%. That's down from last year's high of
7.7%. Expectations about interest rates has started to sort out for an
increase with 35.6% of respondents expecting higher interest rates
while 29.7% expect rates to fall. A separate question indicated that a
near record 54.3% of respondents expected lower stock prices. The
decline in overall consumer confidence over the last year has been
greatest amongst higher income earners. It has been fairly uniform by
age group.
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Conference
Board &nbsp;(SA, 1985=100)</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</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 class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer
Confidence Index</td>
<td>26.0</td>
<td>25.3</td>
<td>-60.5</td>
<td>57.9</td>
<td>103.4</td>
<td>105.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Present Situation</td>
<td>21.5</td>
<td>22.3</td>
<td>-76.3</td>
<td>69.9</td>
<td>128.8</td>
<td>130.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Expectations</td>
<td>28.9</td>
<td>27.3</td>
<td>-52.6</td>
<td>50.0</td>
<td>86.4</td>
<td>89.7</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The Conference Board reported that its March index of consumer confidence stabilized this month near its record low level reached during February. The reading of 26.0 was roughly stable with February but it left confidence three- [...]

U.S. Consumer Confidence Stabilizes Near Record Low

<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/090330c.jpg" width="353">
Petroleum prices continued to rally last week as sentiment continued to shift on the economy. Firmer data on U.S. consumer spending, home sales &amp; factory orders helped lift crude oil prices to their highest level since last November. For a barrel of West Texas Intermediate prices rose to $53.09, up more than 50% from the December low of $32.37 per barrel. That bullish economic sentiment reversed somewhat yesterday, however. In futures trading the May contract price for crude oil fell back to $48.41 per barrel. Prices reached a high of $145.66 last July.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090331d.jpg" width="353">
Regular gasoline prices followed the rise in crude and increased last week to $2.05 per gallon, also the highest level since last November. The latest was up 43 cents from the December low. Yesterday, the spot market price for regular gasoline turned with the drop in crude oil prices and fell nearly ten cents from Friday&#39;s level. These prices compare to those that were slightly below $1.00 at the end of last year. The figures are reported by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Weekly gasoline prices can be found in Haver&#39;s WEEKLY database. Daily prices are in the DAILY database.
The price effect on driving has been little changed. Gasoline demand continued to suffer due to the effects of the U.S. recession although earlier declines in gasoline prices have given some lift to driving. The latest y/y change of -0.4% moderated from the 4.8% rate of decline seen last October. (Gasoline prices at the time were just off their peak.) The change in demand is measured using the latest four weeks versus the same four weeks in 2008. Demand for all petroleum products was down 3.2% y/y. That negative comparison was led by a 10.1% decline in distillate demand and a 7.2% drop in residual fuel oil consumption. These numbers are available in Haver&#39;s OILWKLY database.
The price of natural gas continued downward with the coming end to the winter heating season. Though prices did tick up last week to $3.92 per mmbtu (-57.7% y/y) they still were near the lowest level since 2002. The latest average price was down more than two-thirds 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">03/30/09</th>
<th scope="col">03/23/09</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>2.05</td>
<td>1.96</td>
<td>-37.8%</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>53.09</td>
<td>49.46</td>
<td>-49.1%</td>
<td>100.16</td>
<td>72.25</td>
<td>66.12</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Petroleum prices continued to rally last week as sentiment continued to shift on the economy. Firmer data on U.S. consumer spending, home sales & factory orders helped lift crude oil prices to their highest level since last November. [...]

Petroleum Prices Strengthen, Then Fall Back

US and China big leaders in adoption of AI models

Robust US demand for advanced technology products

China's export growth rotating away from the US

More pronounced upward revisions in countries more exposed to AI investment

Stable job openings and hiring rates point to cautious hiring

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

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

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

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

PMIs show still-elevated but slowing US inflation

AI boosting US investment in data centers

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

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

US financial markets have gotten used to elevated policy uncertainty

FOMC now expects more rate cuts going forward than in June

China gaining ASEAN exports while US exports slump

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

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

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

Equity market exuberance outpacing macroeconomic data

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

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

Service Health

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

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Featured Data Additions

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Andrew Cates

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

260205Z1.jpg

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

260205Z2.jpg

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

260205Z3.jpg

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

260205Z4.jpg

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

260205Z5.jpg

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

260205Z6.jpg

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

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

260206E.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

260206.jpg

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

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

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

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

Germany

German IP Reveals Chaotic Trends

Winnie Tapasanun

260205X15.jpg

260205Y15.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

260205C15.jpg

260205D15.jpg

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

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

Sandy Batten

260205A2.jpg

260205B2.jpg

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

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

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ending January 17, the highest unemployment rates were in Rhode Island (2.83%), New Jersey (2.77%), Massachusetts (2.67%), Washington (2.54%), and Minnesota (2.45%). The lowest rates were in Florida (0.30%), North Carolina (0.42%), Louisiana (0.43%), Alabama (0.46%), and Arkansas (0.47). Rates in other notable states include Illinois (2.15%), California, (2.08%), New York (2.02%), Pennsylvania (1.91%), and Texas (1.09%). These state data are not seasonally adjusted.

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

260205C2.jpg

260205D2.jpg

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

U.S. Initial Unemployment Claims Surged in Latest Week

260205E.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

Challenger Layoffs Ease Slightly Second Month

Rise In ISM Index Suggests Factory Sector Stabilization

ADP Report: Payroll Employment Down Another 742,000

ADP Report: Payroll Employment Down Another 742,000

Turkey -- Another Emerging Economy Reports A Dismal 4Th Quarter Gross Domestic Product

Flash Dance - Inflation Waltzes to New Lows as Risk Soars to Dizzying Heights

U.S. Consumer Confidence Stabilizes Near Record Low

Petroleum Prices Strengthen, Then Fall Back