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

Tom Moeller

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 




<img 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

<!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/090331a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The January S&amp;P/Case-Shiller 20
Home Price Composite Index fell 2.2% from December. That
pulled prices down 19.0% during the last twelve months and by 29.1%
since their peak in May 2006. The series dates back only to
2000. The January decline in prices was as expected.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090331b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The S&amp;P/Case-Shiller home price series can be found in
Haver's USECON database but the city data is in the
REGIONAL database.
The Case-Shiller index of 20 U.S. cities and their surrounding
areas is weighted to reflect price changes due to extensive remodeling,
home additions or extreme neglect. For example, smaller weights are
assigned to sales of homes that have undergone extensive remodeling.
The Case-Shiller composite index of homes in 10 metropolitan
areas, which has a longer history and dates back to 1987, fell 2.0% and
was down 19.4% year-to-year. The measure was down 29.7% since the 2006
peak.
Weakest Regions: Home prices in Phoenix,
Nevada were quite weak and fell 35.0% y/y and in San Diego prices fell
24.9% y/y, off 40.4% from their early 2006 peak. Home prices in Las
Vegas, Nevada fell 32.5% y/y and were down 46.2% from their peak.
Prices in Miami fell 29.4% y/y while home prices in Los Angeles were
down 25.8% y/y. In San Francisco home prices were off 32.4%
year-to-year. In Tampa they fell 23.3% and in Detroit home prices fell
by 22.6% y/y.
Less Weak Regions: In the Northeast, the
decline in home prices continued less severe. Prices in New York fell
9.6% y/y, off 16.2% from their 2006 peak. Prices were down 7.3%
year-to-year in Boston and in Dallas prices were off by a modest 4.8%
y/y and by 8.8% from the 2007 peak. In Charlotte, North Carolina prices
fell a moderate 8.8% y/y and in Denver home prices prices fell just
5.1% y/y. In Cleveland, Ohio prices were off 5.1% y/y but in Chicago
home prices were down a larger 16.4% y/y, 22.0% from the 2007 peak.
The latest press release from Standard &amp; Poor's can be
found <a href="http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/index/CSHomePrice_Release_033114.pdf">here</a>.
An overview of the S&amp;P/Case-Shiller home price series can be
found <a href="http://www2.standardandpoors.com/portal/site/sp/en/us/page.topic/indices_csmahp/0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0.html">here</a>.
The Case-Shiller data is available in Haver's USECON
database.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">S&amp;P/Case-Shiller
Home Price Index (SA, Jan 00 = 100)</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">December</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">20 City Composite
Index</td>
<td>147.45</td>
<td>150.75</td>
<td>-19.0%</td>
<td>-15.8%</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The January S&P/Case-Shiller 20 Home Price Composite Index fell 2.2% from December. That pulled prices down 19.0% during the last twelve months and by 29.1% since their peak in May 2006. The series dates back only to 2000. The January [...]

Case-Shiller Home Price Index Falls Further

Case-Shiller Home Price IndexFalls Further

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090330d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
In the EMU framework it is pretty clear that things are not
going very well. In the March report even though the Markit (formerly
Reuter) PMIs had bottomed and risen, the similar gauges from the EU
Commission show no such trend. Indeed, the EU Commission framework
shows universal weakness and near universal worst case readings. The overall sentiment index as at a
low as is the industrial measure, consumer confidence, and the service
sector barometer. Above their lowest readings are the retail and
construction sectors each of which is still in about the lower 10% of
its respective range. And
that&#8217;s as good as it gets - bottom 10% - a clear &#8216;F&#8217; if we were grading.
Moreover, the overall sentiment gauges for EMU are at their
lowest in EMU as a whole, in Germany and in Italy . The UK , an EU
member, is also on a low. France and Spain are not at their respective
all time (since 1985) lows, but are not far from them.

If we turn to the industrial sector details we find that most
of the component readings are at or near all time lows except for
inventories; they are in the top 10% of their range &#8211; not a good
&#8216;top-10&#8217; reading at all.
Consumer confidence is also at its all-time low although its
components are not so universally at extremes.
Still, the economic situation in the past 12-months and
expectations for the next 12-months are each at all time lows. The environment for making major
purchases now is only &#8216;only&#8217; in the bottom 30% of its range. For the
next 12months the reading is in the bottom 15% of its range, a bit
worse that eh current reading: that is not good. Still
the consumer does not seem as beleaguered as the industrial sector.
German and French consumer responses are at all-time lows. Italy , the
UK and Spain are, respectively, in the bottom 17th,
17th and 9th percent of
their ranges.
With the consumers not being as impacted as badly as industry
it is not surprising that the retail sector is &#8216;only&#8217; in the bottom 10%
of its range. Across the largest EMU/EU countries the results are even
better. In France the responses are only in the bottom 63rd
percentile of their range (top 37%!), Italy&#8217;s retail sector is in the
bottom 34th percentile, Germany and Spain are in
the lower 20th percentile and the UK is the
weakest in the bottom 17th percentile.
The services sector has no bright spots or readings. The
overall gauges for EU is at its all time low as are all its component
readings; the main countries have readings that are at their all-time
lows or quite near them.
Construction as a sector is in the lower 25th
percentile of its range on an EU-wide basis. Across countries, Germany
and Italy show near midpoint readings in construction; France is a 30th
percentile reading; the UK is a bottom 25th
percentile reading; Spain is a bottom 20 percentile reading.
Expected and current employment readings are at their worst or
bottom 10% across the various sectors with the obvious exception of the
expected unemployment reading which is at an all time high.
The EU/EMU is a still every weak region. It is not showing the
upward momentum or abatement of downward momentum that is becoming
increasingly common in the US . Its leaders are less active in
implementing new stimulus programs, although in fairness, Europe in
general has a better social safety-net than does the US . Still As I
pointed out at the time of the Obama plan, &#8216;cushion&#8217; is not &#8216;stimulus&#8217;.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="10" scope="col">EU
Sectors and Country level Overall Sentiment</th>
<th colspan="2" scope="col">R-SQ</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">EU</td>
<td>Mar 
09</td>
<td>Feb 
09</td>
<td>Jan 
09</td>
<td>Dec 
08</td>
<td>%tile</td>
<td>Rank</td>
<td>Max</td>
<td>Min</td>
<td>Range</td>
<td>Mean</td>
<td>w/ 
Overall</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">Overall</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">60.3</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">60.9</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">63.2</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">66.6</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">0.0</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">220</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">116</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">60</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">56</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">99</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">1.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Industrial</td>
<td>-39</td>
<td>-37</td>
<td>-33</td>
<td>-32</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>220</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>-39</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>-8</td>
<td>0.89</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Confid</td>
<td>-32</td>
<td>-32</td>
<td>-31</td>
<td>-28</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>219</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-32</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>0.86</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Retail</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>-24</td>
<td>-25</td>
<td>-25</td>
<td>9.7</td>
<td>217</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>-25</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>-6</td>
<td>0.62</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Construction</td>
<td>-38</td>
<td>-38</td>
<td>-36</td>
<td>-32</td>
<td>8.9</td>
<td>205</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-42</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>-18</td>
<td>0.44</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Services</td>
<td>-31</td>
<td>-29</td>
<td>-28</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>145</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>-31</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>0.87</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>% m/m</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>Mar 
09</td>
<td colspan="2">Based on Level</td>
<td colspan="4">Level</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">EMU</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>-2.8%</td>
<td>-2.5%</td>
<td>64.6</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>220</td>
<td>117</td>
<td>65</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>0.96</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td>72.4</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>220</td>
<td>121</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>0.70</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>73.1</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td>219</td>
<td>119</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>0.81</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>-6.3%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>67.1</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>220</td>
<td>121</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>0.82</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Spain</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>-3.2%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>67.8</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>218</td>
<td>117</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>0.72</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Memo:UK</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>-6.3%</td>
<td>-10.9%</td>
<td>56.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>220</td>
<td>117</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>0.58</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="5">Since 1990 except
Services (Oct
1996)247</td>
<td>-Count</td>
<td>Services:</td>
<td>145</td>
<td>-Count</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="12" class="firstcol">Sentiment
is an index, sector
readings are net balance diffusion measures</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

In the EMU framework it is pretty clear that things are not going very well. In the March report even though the Markit (formerly Reuter) PMIs had bottomed and risen, the similar gauges from the EU Commission show no such trend. [...]

EMU Still Sinking In EU Index Report

<!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/090330e.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The Japanese index of industrial production in manufacturing
continued to fall sharply in February. The index with base 2005=100 was
68.8 down 9.5% from January and 27.8% below February, 2007.
Manufacturing production is now at levels last seen in the late
seventies and early eighties of the last century. The decline in the
production index has followed quickly on the declines in the index of
manufacturing shipments, but until the last two months, the index of
inventories continued to rise, resulting in a rising index of
inventory/sales ratio, as can be seem in the first chart. The index of
the inventory/sales ratio rose in January and February, as the declines
in shipments offset the declines in index of inventories.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090330f.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The index of manufacturing inventories showed a decline of
2.1% in January from December and one of 4.2% in February from January.
Although these reductions seem small in percentage terms, the 4.2% drop
was the biggest drop since 1978 when the record keeping began. With
production at historical lows and now historically large reductions in
inventories, manufacturers are apparently are beginning to see a need
to increase production. and are currently forecasting increases in the
index of industrial production for manufacturing in March and April of
2.8% and 3.1% respectively. The second chart shows their expectations.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">JAPAN
MANUFACTURING&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (2005=100)</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 09</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 09&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Feb&nbsp; 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">M/M CHG&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y CHG</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Industrial
Production&nbsp;</td>
<td>68.6</td>
<td>75.8</td>
<td>110.2</td>
<td>-9.50</td>
<td>-37.75</td>
<td>103.9</td>
<td>107.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Shipments</td>
<td>70.4</td>
<td>76.0</td>
<td>111.3</td>
<td>-6.84</td>
<td>-36.39</td>
<td>104.5</td>
<td>107.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Inventories</td>
<td>103.7</td>
<td>108.2</td>
<td>105.4</td>
<td>-4.16</td>
<td>-1.61</td>
<td>106.7</td>
<td>103.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Inventory/sales Ratio</td>
<td>158.2</td>
<td>151.4</td>
<td>99.8</td>
<td>4.49</td>
<td>60.94</td>
<td>108.7</td>
<td>100.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The Japanese index of industrial production in manufacturing continued to fall sharply in February. The index with base 2005=100 was 68.8 down 9.5% from January and 27.8% below February, 2007. Manufacturing production is now at levels [...]

Has Japanese Industrial Production Bottomed?

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: March 2009

Jump to: