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>
 




<div align="left"><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080228h.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">

Japan&#8217;s dip in IP in January is hard to evaluate right now. IP
trends are moving lower but the Yr/Yr rate is still steady. The shorter
term sequential growth rates, in the table below, show that the recent
weakness is an artifact of the 3-month growth rates alone. Six-month
growth rates are higher that 12-month rates for Total MFG and total
industry. But textiles output, investment goods and minting show
erosion between the 6 and 12-month horizons. All sectors and industries
see declines in January and all are lower over three months except
electricity and gas producers.
</div>
<div align="left"> </div>


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8" scope="col"> Japan Industrial
Production Trends</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="3">
m/m %
</td>
<td colspan="3">
Saar %
</td>
<td>
Yr/Yr
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Jan-08
</td>
<td>Dec-07
</td>
<td>Nov-07
</td>
<td>3-mo
</td>
<td>6-mo
</td>
<td>12-mo
</td>
<td>Yr-Ago
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">
Mining
&amp; Mfg
</td>
<td>-2.0%
</td>
<td>
1.4%
</td>
<td>-1.6%
</td>
<td>-8.3%
</td>
<td>
3.2%
</td>
<td>
2.5%
</td>
<td>
3.2%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">
Total
Industry
</td>
<td> -2.3%
</td>
<td>
1.7%
</td>
<td>-1.3%
</td>
<td>-7.6%
</td>
<td>
3.9%
</td>
<td>
2.6%
</td>
<td>
2.6%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">
Mfg
</td>
<td>&nbsp;-1.9%
</td>
<td>
1.4%
</td>
<td>-1.6%
</td>
<td>-8.3%
</td>
<td>3.4%
</td>
<td>
2.5%
</td>
<td>
3.2%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">
Textiles
</td>
<td> -2.3%
</td>
<td>
2.5%
</td>
<td> -2.2%
</td>
<td> -7.7%
</td>
<td> -7.4%
</td>
<td> -5.0%
</td>
<td> -4.2%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">
Transport
</td>
<td> -3.2%
</td>
<td>
2.4%
</td>
<td> -2.9%
</td>
<td> -14.2%
</td>
<td>
31.5%
</td>
<td>
11.6%
</td>
<td>
4.6%
</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="8"> Product
Group
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">
Consumer
Goods
</td>
<td> -1.5%
</td>
<td>
2.1%
</td>
<td> -2.1%
</td>
<td> -6.1%
</td>
<td>
13.2%
</td>
<td>
4.2%
</td>
<td> -0.8%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">
Intermediate
Goods
</td>
<td>
-2.6%
</td>
<td>
1.3%
</td>
<td>
-1.1%
</td>
<td> -9.4%
</td>
<td>
3.6%
</td>
<td>
4.3%
</td>
<td>
3.8%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">
Investment
Goods
</td>
<td> -0.4%
</td>
<td> -0.6%
</td>
<td> -1.9%
</td>
<td> -11.1%
</td>
<td> -7.6%
</td>
<td> -3.4%
</td>
<td>
5.8%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">
Mining
</td>
<td> -2.9%
</td>
<td>
1.1%
</td>
<td> -5.9%
</td>
<td> -27.2%
</td>
<td> -15.9%
</td>
<td> -5.1%
</td>
<td>
3.5%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">
Electric
&amp; Gas
</td>
<td> -1.4%
</td>
<td>
0.2%
</td>
<td>
2.0%
</td>
<td>
3.2%
</td>
<td>
15.2%
</td>
<td>
5.9%
</td>
<td> -2.8%
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Japan’s dip in IP in January is hard to evaluate right now. IP trends are moving lower but the Yr/Yr rate is still steady. The shorter term sequential growth rates, in the table below, show that the recent weakness is an artifact of [...]

Japan Industrial Production is Slipping

<!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>
 




<div align="left"><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080228g.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The UK economy has dropped and is dropping sharply in early
2008.The index is the
weakest it has been in at least 10 years. Over the past 12 months
households still rate their own financial situation in the top 80 percentile of its range the past 10
years. But they rate the time to make major purchases as the worst in
at least 10 years.The
general economic situation is called the worst in 10 years and the CPI
situation rates as the worst in 10 years.The
financial situation over the next 12 months is also rated as the worst
in the past 10 years. Income expectations are the lowest in 10 years
for lower as well as upper income earners.
Like in France, the UK consumers are very disturbed by recent
events. Both UK and French consumers rate prices as the worst in some
time. Living standards have been eroded in both countries. Despite
Europe&#8217;s continuing to grow there are obvious risks to the economy with
consumers feeling so glum. We see it in recent reports in the US, in
the UK, in France as well as in Japan.Consumer
spending has lagged in Europe, in the US and in Japan and we see why,
as consumers are forced to rate their own situation and that process
tells us how bad they feel. Weak growth, financial turmoil, rising
energy and food prices are taking a toll on consumers.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr><th colspan="7" scope="col"> GFK Consumer Survey</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>% of 2Yr</td>
<td>% of 10Yr</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Feb-08</td>
<td>Jan-08</td>
<td>Dec-07</td>
<td>Nov-07</td>
<td>Range</td>
<td>Range</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-13</td>
<td>-14</td>
<td>-10</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7">Current</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Household Fin Sit</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>75.0%</td>
<td>83.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Major Purchases</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>-13</td>
<td>-14</td>
<td>-7</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">Last 12 Months</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Household Fin Sit</td>
<td>-1</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>37.5%</td>
<td>44.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">General Econ Sit</td>
<td>-40</td>
<td>-36</td>
<td>-36</td>
<td>-32</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">CPI</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>78</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>73</td>
<td style="color: red;">100.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">100.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Savings</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>22.2%</td>
<td>75.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">Next 12-Months</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Household Fin Sit</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>9</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">General Econ Sit</td>
<td>-29</td>
<td>-26</td>
<td>-26</td>
<td>-21</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.0%</td>
<td>16.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>50.0%</td>
<td>70.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Major Purchases</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>-20</td>
<td style="color: red;">12.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">6.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Savings</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>36.4%</td>
<td>74.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">By Income</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Lower</td>
<td>-24</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>-16</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Upper</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>-7</td>
<td>-6</td>
<td style="color: red;">5.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">5.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div></body></html>

The UK economy has dropped and is dropping sharply in early 2008.The index is the weakest it has been in at least 10 years. Over the past 12 months households still rate their own financial situation in the top 80 percentile of its [...]

UK Consumer Confidence Drops

<!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/080228f.jpg" align="left" height="265" width="353">
French household confidence is at an all time life-of-series
low. Living standards for the past 12 months are rated as the worst of
this 18-year period.Expected
conditions over the next 12 months are rated in the bottom 3 percent of
their range. Unemployment still is not widely expected and the
expectations reading stands in the 43rd
percentile of its range. Price developments are in the top of their 18
range when assessed over the past 12 months but only in their 40th
percentile looking forward. The environment for spending is weak, in
the 27th percentile of its historic range. And
the financial situation is sub par. The current financial situation is
rated at the 47th percentile of its range, a
moderate step below the midpoint (50). But the past 12 months are rated
in the bottom 9 percent of its range and the next 12 months are rated
in the bottom 7 percent of its range. Clearly consumers are having a
great difficulty and are unsure of the future and generally more
pessimistic.
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="11" scope="col"> INSEE
Household Monthly Survey</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="2">Since Jan 1990</td>
<td colspan="4">Since Jan 1990</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Feb 
08</td>
<td>Jan 
08</td>
<td>Dec 
07</td>
<td>Nov 
07</td>
<td>%tile</td>
<td>Rank</td>
<td>Max</td>
<td>Min</td>
<td>Range</td>
<td>Mean</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Household Confidence</td>
<td>-35</td>
<td>-34</td>
<td>-30</td>
<td>-29</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>215</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>-35</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>-17</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="11">Living
Standards</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">past 12 Mos</td>
<td>-68</td>
<td>-65</td>
<td>-62</td>
<td>-60</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>215</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>-68</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>-37</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Next 12-Mos</td>
<td>-42</td>
<td>-44</td>
<td>-32</td>
<td>-36</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>212</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>-44</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>-18</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment: Next 12</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>43.6</td>
<td>160</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>-37</td>
<td>110</td>
<td>29</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="11">Price
Developments</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Past 12Mo</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>-57</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>-19</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Next 12-Mos</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>-8</td>
<td>40.7</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>-60</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>-34</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="11">Savings</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Favorable to save</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>55.6</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>23</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Ability to save Next 12</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>-13</td>
<td>37.9</td>
<td>145</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>-8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="11">Spending</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Favorable for major purchase</td>
<td>-26</td>
<td>-24</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>27.6</td>
<td>187</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>-42</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>-12</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="11">Financial
Situation</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Current</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>47.6</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Past 12 MOs</td>
<td>-25</td>
<td>-25</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>-20</td>
<td>9.1</td>
<td>203</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>-27</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>-16</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Next 12-Mos</td>
<td>-14</td>
<td>-14</td>
<td>-10</td>
<td>-9</td>
<td>7.4</td>
<td>213</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>-16</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="11">Number of
observations in the
period: 218</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

</body></html>

French household confidence is at an all time life-of-series low. Living standards for the past 12 months are rated as the worst of this 18-year period.Expected conditions over the next 12 months are rated in the bottom 3 percent of [...]

French Morale Slips Then Falls Flat. Worst In Over 18 Years

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>
 



<div align="left"><img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080228e.jpg" width="353">
The Conference Board reported that its index of help-wanted advertising dipped last month to a reading of 21, the record low plumbed in November.
During the last ten years there has been a 57% correlation between the level of help-wanted advertising and the three month change in non-farm payrolls.
The proportion of labor markets with rising want-ads fell to 41% from 59% in December. Both figures were improved from the low of 12% in August.</div>
Most regions of the country showed the same, depressed readings of help wanted as December except the East South Central region where the index declined.
The Conference Board surveys help-wanted print advertising volume in 51 major newspapers across the country every month. The latest help wanted report from the Conference Board is available <a href="http://www.conference-board.org/economics/helpwanted.cfm">here</a>.In 2006, the Conference Board introduced its Help Wanted Online Data Series and the latest release can be found in this <a href="http://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/HWOnLinePR_080130.pdf">link</a>.<div align="left"> </div>

<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/CBDB/@C3/@C3.HTM">Conference Board</a></th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">January 2007</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">National Help Wanted Index</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>39</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Conference Board reported that its index of help-wanted advertising dipped last month to a reading of 21, the record low plumbed in November. During the last ten years there has been a 57% correlation between the level of help- [...]

U.S. Help-Wanted Advertising Back to Record Low in January

<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/080228c.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose a sharp 1,900 to 373,000 last week. During February claims have averaged 361,000, up 10.4% from the January average. The latest weekly level remained near the highest since October of 2005.
The four-week moving average of initial claims, a measure which smoothes out most of the series&#39; w/w volatility, dipped slightly to 360,500 (+7.6% y/y).
A claims level below 400,000 typically has been associated with growth in nonfarm payrolls. During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 76% correlation between the level of initial claims and the m/m change in nonfarm payroll employment.
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance again rose sharply by 21,000 after a 49,000 increase during the prior week that was revised marginally higher. Insured unemployment stood at its highest level since Summer 2005. The figure provides some indication of workers&#39; ability to find employment.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080228d.jpg" width="353">
The continuing claims numbers lag the initial claims figures by one week.
The insured rate of unemployment remained at 2.1% for the fourth consecutive week.

<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/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a>&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">02/23/08</th>
<th scope="col">02/16/08</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2006&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>&nbsp;373</td>
<td>354</td>
<td>10.7%</td>
<td>313</td>
<td>331</td>
<td>343</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>2,807</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>2,459</td>
<td>2,662</td>
<td>2,924</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose a sharp 1,900 to 373,000 last week. During February claims have averaged 361,000, up 10.4% from the January average. The latest weekly level remained near the highest since October of [...]

U.S. Weekly Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance Up

<!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/080228a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
U.S. real GDP growth during last quarter
was unrevised at a 0.6% annual rate. The Commerce Department figure was
just slightly below the Consensus expectation for an upward revision to
a 0.8% rise. The gain still was down sharply from an average rate of
growth during the prior two quarters of 4.4%.
As expected, improvement in the foreign trade
deficit added more to growth last quarter as imports are now shown to
have declined at a 1.9% rate, rather than rise sharply. Export growth
also was revised slower to 4.8%.
Half of the addition to GDP growth from trade was offset by
more of a subtraction from inventory decumulation.
The remaining half of the revision stemmed from slower
estimated growth in final sales to domestic purchasers.
The decline in residential construction was
deepened slightly to -25.2% (-18.6% y/y) and that pulled 1.3 percentage
points out of GDP growth. Growth in business fixed investment
also was revised slightly slower to a 6.9% rise. Growth in real
personal consumption was held about steady at 1.9%.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080228b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Growth in the GDP chain price index was
added to slightly to a 2.7% (AR) gain. The PCE price index rose at a
4.1% rate which was revised up very slightly. Less food &amp;
energy prices rose at the same 2.7% rate as initially estimated.
Monetary Policy Actions and Long-Run Inflation
Expectations is from the Federal Reserve Board and it
can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200803/200803pap.pdf">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/USECON/@E7/@E701/@E701.HTM">Chained
2000$, % AR</a></th>
<th scope="col">4Q '07 (Preliminary)</th>
<th scope="col">4Q '07 (Advance)</th>
<th scope="col">3Q '07</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">GDP</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>3.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Inventory
Effect</td>
<td>-1.5</td>
<td>-1.3</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Final Sales</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>3.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Foreign Trade Effect</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Domestic Final Demand</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>3.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Chained GDP Price Index</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>3.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

U.S. real GDP growth during last quarter was unrevised at a 0.6% annual rate. The Commerce Department figure was just slightly below the Consensus expectation for an upward revision to a 0.8% rise. The gain still was down sharply from [...]

US 4Q GDP Held at 0.6% Growth

<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/080227e.jpg" width="353">
According to the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) home prices in the U.S. rose just 0.1% last quarter. That rounded out a year end gain of just 0.8%, and of 2.8% for the full year. These rates of increase were the slowest since the 1990s, although the slowing did follow gains earlier this decade which were the strongest since the late 1970s.
The House Price Indices in this report are weighted indexes based on repeat sales or refinancings using data provided by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. The overall figures are available in Haver&#39;s USECON data base and the state figures are in US REGIONAL<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080227f.jpg" width="353">
Home price performance varied greatly last year across the country to net out at the slight 0.8% overall uptick. Down hard were home prices in California though rates of appreciation slowed most every where. A 6.6% decline in prices 4Q/4Q was followed just barely by a 4.7% rate of decline in Florida. These declines pulled prices down for the full year but both annual shortfalls followed double digit gains in 2006. That was not, however, the pattern in Michigan where prices have declined steadily since 2005.
If prices in other regions did rise 4Q/4Q the rates of increase were down most everywhere. New York squeezed out a 0.7% price increase last year but it followed much more respectable gains in 2006 and 2005. The same pattern was true for neighboring New Jersey and Pennsylvania.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080227g.jpg" width="353">
In the South and certainly in the West, other than in California, home price appreciation barely took a breadth. For the full year 2007, double digit gains in Wyoming were accompanied by respectable price increases in Texas and South Carolina. Neighboring North Carolina and Tennessee did well as well.
The latest report from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) can be found <a href="http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/4q07hpi.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/REGIONAL/@R11/@R1101/@R1101.HTM">House Price Index (OFHEO, %)</a></th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;07</th>
<th scope="col">3Q &#39;07</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">United States</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>8.2</td>
<td>11.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; California</td>
<td>-3.1</td>
<td>-1.9</td>
<td>-6.6</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>11.5</td>
<td>23.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Florida</td>
<td>-1.7</td>
<td>-2.1</td>
<td>-4.7</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>17.2</td>
<td>25.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Michigan</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>-2.5</td>
<td>-4.3</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>3.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Massachusetts</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>-1.4</td>
<td>-2.2</td>
<td>-1.6</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>9.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wyoming</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>8.3</td>
<td>11.2</td>
<td>13.5</td>
<td>11.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Texas</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>5.2</td>
<td>6.4</td>
<td>6.3</td>
<td>4.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; South Carolina</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>5.7</td>
<td>8.3</td>
<td>7.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; New York</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>8.2</td>
<td>13.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

According to the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) home prices in the U.S. rose just 0.1% last quarter. That rounded out a year end gain of just 0.8%, and of 2.8% for the full year. These rates of increase were [...]

Home Price Appreciation Weakest Since 1990

USD/EUR exchange rate uncoupling from interest rate differential

Widespread downgrading of 2025 GDP outlook

Trade and fiscal policy uncertainty has exploded with the new administration

Much lower US electricity costs gives it a competitive advantage

Wage growth slowing in the US and Euro area; elevated and sticky in the UK

Stagflation-lite: Blue Chip forecasts below-trend growth and elevated inflation

US policy gyrations boosting policy uncertainty worldwide

Expected tariff hikes have boosted inflation expectations

US and Japan ended 2024 on solid ground in contrast to Europe

US economy expected to outperform other major economies in 2025

Only modest evidence of AI-related surge in US productivity growth

Previous Trump tariffs fading. A boost from new tariffs ahead?

Heavy US manufacturing states underperforming while Sun Belt states outperforming

Rising long-term yields a global phenomenon

US financial market concerns shifting from growth to inflation

Economic activity is picking up in the US but remains lackluster abroad

Policy uncertainty has surged since the US national elections.

Recent turnaround in US economic surprises leading to increases in rate-cut expectations

The outlook has brightened in the US, while it has dimmed for other major economies

Headline US PCE inflation elevated by sticky services prices

US and global equity prices have recently diverged

US leading global upturn in economic surprises

Blue Chip forecasters look for further significant monetary easing apart from Japan

Recent rise in global supply chain pressures could augur a pickup in global inflation pressures

Underperforming German economy generating increased policy uncertainty relative to Europe and the US

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

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

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

250430N1.jpg

250430O1.jpg

Real GDP eased 0.3% SAAR (+2.1% y/y) during the first quarter of 2025 after increasing 2.4% in Q4’24 and 3.1% in Q3’24. A 0.4% increase had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. It was the first decline since Q1 2022.

Foreign trade subtracted 4.83 percentage points from growth last quarter as imports surged 41.3% (13.4% y/y) ahead of tariffs, which began to come into effect in the first quarter. The rise followed a 1.9% decline in Q4’24. Exports rose 1.8% (3.0% y/y) after easing 0.2% in Q4. Inventories added 2.25 percentage points to growth after subtracting 0.84 percentage point from Q4 growth.

Real final sales to domestic purchasers grew 2.3% (2.9% y/y) in Q1 after rising 3.0% in Q4. Personal consumption expenditures rose 1.8% (3.1% y/y) following a 4.0% gain. Durable goods spending fell 3.4% (+5.3% y/y) after surging 12.4% in Q4. Motor vehicle purchases declined 11.1% (+5.5% y/y) after strengthening 19.7% in Q4. Spending on home furnishings & appliances gained 1.5% (6.1% y/y) following a 5.4% rise. Recreational goods & vehicle outlays rose 2.5% (7.0% y/y) last quarter after a 13.9% Q4 increase.

Nondurable goods outlays rose 2.7% (3.0% y/y) following 3.1% growth in Q4. Apparel spending increased 6.7% (2.5% y/y) following a 5.0% rise. Food & beverage buying gained 2.5% (2.3% y/y) after a 1.8% increase. Gasoline & fuel oil purchases increased 4.6% (3.4% y/y) after falling 2.0% in Q4.

Spending on services increased 2.4% last quarter (2.7% y/y) after a 3.0% gain. Outlays on housing & utilities increased 3.4% (1.8% y/y) after rising 1.1% in Q4. Health care expenditures rose 4.0% (4.8% y/y) following a 4.7% strengthening. Transportation outlays increased 5.3% (4.6% y/y) after a 3.7% rise while recreation spending rose 4.7% (2.8% y/y) following a 4.5% rise. Restaurant & hotel expenditures declined 2.1% (+0.5% y/y) following a 2.8% rise. Financial services expenditures rose 1.9% (2.0% y/y) after a 3.1% Q4 increase.

Business fixed investment increased 9.8% (3.6% y/y) following a 3.0% decline in Q4. Expenditures on structures rose 0.4% (-0.4% y/y) after a 2.9% increase. Expenditures on producers’ durable equipment jumped 22.5% (8.0% y/y) after falling 8.7%.  Outlays on information processing equipment soared 69.3% (18.9% y/y) following a 7.3% decline. Industrial equipment investment fell 1.4% (-0.3% y/y) after easing 0.9%. Intellectual property product spending rose 4.1% (1.8% y/y) following a 0.5% decline. 

Residential structures investment increased 1.3% (-0.1% y/y) in Q1 after a 5.5% Q4 rise.

250430P1.jpg

250430Q1.jpg

Government spending fell 1.5% (+2.4% y/y) after a 3.1% Q4 rise. Federal government expenditures declined 5.1% (+2.9% y/y) after rising 4.0% in Q4. National defense expenditures declined 8.0% (+4.0% y/y) after increasing 4.8% in Q4. State & local government spending rose 0.8% (2.1% y/y) following a 2.5% rise.

The GDP price index rose 3.7% (2.6% y/y) after increasing 2.3% in Q4. It was the largest increase since Q4’22. A 2.4% increase had been expected. The PCE chain price index increased 3.6% (2.5% y/y) following a 2.4% rise. The PCE price index excluding food and energy rose 3.5% (2.8% y/y) after increasing 2.6% in Q4. The business fixed investment price index rose 0.4% (1.8% y/y) after 1.5% rise. The residential price index strengthened 3.9% (3.2% y/y) after a 1.9% rise while the government price index increased 4.7% (2.8% y/y) following a 2.1% rise.

The GDP data can be found in Haver’s **USECON** and **USNA** databases. **USNA** contains virtually all of the Bureau of Economic Analysis detail in the national accounts. The Action Economics consensus estimates can be found in **AS1REPNA**.

250430R1.jpg

250430S1.jpg

- Decline in GDP is first in three years.
- Foreign trade subtracts substantially ahead of tariffs.
- Domestic final demand growth weakens.
- Price index strengthens with higher core PCE prices.

U.S. GDP Unexpectedly Declines in Q1’25; Prices Strengthen

Michael J. Moran

250430A.jpg

250430B.jpg

High-side readings on the price indexes for personal consumption expenditures in January and February caused some concern about emerging price pressure, especially with some policies of the Trump administration possibly adding to the upward force. However, March brought notable relief, with the headline price index falling slightly (-0.04%). A marked decline in energy prices was helpful (-2.7%), but core prices also were subdued, increasing less than 0.1%.  Year-over-year changes were still above the Fed’s target of 2%, but only barely so for the headline measure (2.3%). The core index backed away from the reading of 3.0% in February, but the latest reading of 2.7% was in line with observations in the past year, and still uncomfortably above target.

Consumers roused from a winter slumber in March, with nominal outlays increasing 0.7%. With inflation restrained, real outlays also posted a gain of 0.7%. Spending on durable gods stood out, with real outlays advancing 3.2%. Real outlays for both nondurable goods and services rose 0.4%, a solid pace. Signs of life were certainly welcome after an average decline of 0.1% in January and February. The March rebound left growth of 1.8% (annual rate) in the first quarter.

The brisk increase in spending in March was supported by a solid gain in personal income (0.5% in both nominal and real terms). Growth in wage income was firm at 0.5%, while proprietors’ income was robust with a gain of 1.8% (not annualized!). The farm sector led the advance in proprietors’ income, but the nonfarm sector also was strong (0.6%).

The personal income and consumption figures are available in Haver’s **USECON** database with detail in the **USNA** database. The Action Economics forecasts are in **AS1REPNA**.

250430C.jpg

250430D.jpg

- Price pressure eases.
- Spending rebounds after two soft months.

Personal Income, Consumption, and Prices in March

250430F20.jpg

250430G20.jpg

The Pending Home Sales Index, a forward-looking home sales measure based on contract signings, from the National Association of Realtors rose 6.1% to 76.5 (-0.6% y/y) during March after rising a little-revised 2.1% in February. These changes followed a 4.6% January decline.

The rise in March sales occurred as the rate on a 30-year mortgage eased to an average 6.65% from 6.84% in February. This rate was well above a low of 2.68% averaged in December 2020.

Pending home sales were up in most regions of the country. Sales in the Midwest rose 4.9% (1.4% y/y) last month after rising 1.8% in February. Sales in the South increased 9.8% (-0.4% y/y) following a 5.8% February rise. Sales in the West improved 4.8% (-2.0% y/y) after falling 3.0% in February. Sales in the Northeast were off 0.5% (-3.0% y/y) in March after falling 0.9% in February.

The pending home sales index measures sales at the time the contract for the purchase of an existing home is signed, similar to the Census Bureau's new home sales data. In contrast, the National Association of Realtors' existing home sales data are recorded when the sale is closed, which is usually a couple of months after the sales contract has been signed. In developing the pending home sales index, the NAR found that the level of monthly sales contract activity leads the level of closed existing home sales by about two months.

The series dates back to 2001 and are available in Haver's **PREALTOR** database. Weekly mortgage interest rates from the Mortgage Bankers Association can be found in the **WEEKLY** database.

- Sales rise to highest level in four months.
- Strength is evident throughout most of country.

U.S. Pending Home Sales Surge in March

Sandy Batten

250430F5.jpg

250430G5.jpg

The employment cost index (ECI) for civilian workers, arguably the most accurate measure of labor compensation in the United States, rose 0.9% q/q (3.6% y/y) in Q1, the same quarterly increase as in last year’s Q4, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The quarterly gains have fluctuated between 0.8% and 1.0% for the past six quarters. The Action Economics Forecast Survey had expected a 0.9% q/q increase and a 3.5% y/y gain.

Wages and salaries for civilian workers rose 0.8% q/q (3.5% y/y) in Q1, down from 1.0% q/q in Q4. This tied the Q3 2024 quarterly rise as the smallest increase since Q2 2021. It was also the smallest y/y increase since Q2 2021. Benefits increased by an outsized 1.2% q/q (3.9% y/y) in Q1 versus 0.8% q/q in Q4. This is the largest quarterly gain since Q2 2022. In general, employment cost gains remain above the pace observed prior to the pandemic but are slowing gradually.

Private industry workers’ compensation rose 0.8% q/q (3.4% y/y) in Q1, down from 0.9% q/q (3.6% y/y) in Q4. Wages and salaries for private industry workers increased 0.8% q/q (3.4% y/y) in Q1 versus 0.8% q/q (3.7% y/y) in Q4. The quarterly gain in Q1 tied that in Q3 2024 as the smallest increase since Q4 2020. Benefits for private industry workers jumped 1.2% q/q (3.6% y/y). the largest quarterly gain since Q2 2022. The acceleration in benefits in Q1 was primarily in service-producing industries.

Compensation in private goods-producing industries increased 1.0% q/q (3.2% y/y) in Q1, the largest quarterly gain in five quarters, versus a 0.7% q/q increase in Q4. Compensation in construction jumped 1.3% q/q, its largest quarterly increase since Q2 2022, up from a 0.6% q/q gain in Q4. Manufacturing compensation growth slowed to 0.7% q/q, its slowest quarterly advance since Q4 2020, from 0.8% q/q in Q4. Compensation in private service-producing industries increased 0.8% q/q (3.5% y/y), down slightly from a 0.9% q/q gain in Q4. Compensation in education and health services jumped 1.3% q/q, its largest quarterly gain since Q3 2023. In contrast, compensation in other services edged up 0.1% q/q in Q1, its smallest quarterly advance since before the pandemic.

The employment cost index measures the change in the cost of labor, free from the influence of employment shifts across occupations and industries. It is provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and is available in Haver’s **USECON** database. Consensus estimates from the Action Economics Forecast Survey are in Haver’s **AS1REPNA** database.

250430H5.jpg

250430I5.jpg

- Compensation grew 0.9 q/q in Q1, the same pace as in Q4.
- Wage growth slowed to 0.8% q/q while benefits surged 1.2% q/q, their largest quarterly increase since Q2 2022.

Employment Cost Growth Steady in Q1 2025

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

250430J4.jpg

250430K4.jpg

The ADP National Employment Report indicated that nonfarm private sector payrolls rose 62,000 (1.4% y/y) during April after increasing 147,000 (1.4% y/y) during March, revised from 155,000. A 124,000 April rise in ADP employment had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.

Growth in median annual pay for "job stayers" eased to 4.5% y/y during April, from 4.6% y/y in March and from 4.7% y/y in the prior two months. Manufacturing sector pay grew 4.6% y/y during April, down from 4.8% y/y in March. Construction sector pay was unchanged at 4.7% y/y. Natural resource & mining sector pay grew 4.4% y/y. Financial sector pay rose 5.1% y/y, while education & health services pay rose 4.7% y/y. Leisure & hospitality pay also increased 4.7% y/y. Professional & business service sector pay increased 4.3% y/y as did trade, transportation & utilities pay. Information pay rose 4.1% y/y. Median annual pay for “job changers” rose 6.9% y/y after 6.7% y/y in March.

Small business hiring (less than 50 employees) rose 11,000 (0.6% y/y) after rising 18,000 (0.6% y/y) in March, revised down from 52,000. Employment at medium-sized firms (50-499,000 employees) rose 40,000 (1.1% y/y) after rising 43,000 (1.1% y/y). Large business hiring (500+ employees) rose 12,000 (3.4% y/y) in April, after rising 61,000 (3.6% y/y) in March, revised from 59,000.

Goods-producing employment rose 26,000 (1.3% y/y) in April, after rising 16,000 (1.3% y/y) during March, revised from 24,000. Manufacturing jobs rose 4,000 (-0.2% y/y) after rising 17,000 (-0.3% y/y) in March. The number of construction sector jobs rose 16,000 (3.4% y/y) in April, following a 2,000 (3.6% y/y) March increase, revised from 6,000. Natural resources & mining jobs rose 6,000 (2.8% y/y) in April after falling 3,000 (+1.9% y/y) in March.

The number of service-producing jobs rose 34,000 (1.4% y/y) during April, following a rise of 131,000 (1.4% y/y) in March. Professional & business services employment fell 2,000 (0.6% y/y) after rising 46,000 (0.7% y/y) in the prior month, revised from 57,000. Employment in the financial industry rose 20,000 (2.1% y/y) in April, after rising 38,000 (2.0% y/y) in March. Leisure and hospitality employment increased 27,000 (3.0% y/y), following a 23,000 (2.9% y/y) March increase, revised from 17,000. The number of education & health care jobs fell 23,000 (1.6% y/y) in April, following a 15,000 (1.8% y/y) rise in March, revised from 12,000. Information sector employment fell 8,000 (-0.1% y/y) after a rise of 3,000 (0.2% y/y) in March. The number of jobs in trade, transportation & utilities rose 21,000 (0.4% y/y) in April, after falling 4,000 (+0.4% y/y) in March, revised from a 6,000 fall. Employment in “other” services rose fell 1,000 (+3.2% y/y) following a 10,000 (3.4% y/y) rise in March, revised from 11,000.

By region, employment in the Northeast increased 10,000 (1.9% y/y) in April, following an increase of 95,000 (2.0% y/y) in March, revised from 89,000. Employment in the Midwest rose 42,000 (1.5% y/y) after a gain of 84,000 (1.4% y/y) in March, revised from 81,000. In the South, employment rose 3,000 (1.3% y/y) during April, after rising 10,000 (1.4% y/y) in March, revised from 27,000. In the West, employment rose 9,000 (0.6% y/y) after declining 43,000 (+0.6% y/y), revised from a 41,000 decline in March.

The ADP National Employment Report and Pay Insights data can be found in Haver's **USECON** database. Historical figures date back to January 2010 for private employment. Pay data date back to October 2020. The expectation figure is available in Haver's **AS1REPNA** database.

250430L4.jpg

250430M4.jpg

- Employment increase is modest in both services & factory sectors.
- Wage growth for “job stayers” moderates.
- Small and medium-sized business employment slows.

Economy in Brief: February 2008

Jump to:

Japan Industrial Production is Slipping

UK Consumer Confidence Drops

French Morale Slips Then Falls Flat. Worst In Over 18 Years

U.S. Help-Wanted Advertising Back to Record Low in January

U.S. Weekly Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance Up

US 4Q GDP Held at 0.6% Growth

US 4Q GDP Held at 0.6% Growth

Home Price Appreciation Weakest Since 1990