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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331h.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 363px; height: 265px; float: right;" align="left"></p>
<p>The Mortgage Bankers Association reported that while
applications for refinancing were weak, purchase applications firmed
during March. Overall, applications rose 2.5% this month after a 10.8%
increase in February.</p>
<p>The gain likely has been fueled by an $8,000 Federal tax
credit which is due to expire April 30. For last week, applications to <i>purchase</i>
a home rose 8.8% in March but that followed declines during the prior
two months. During the last ten years there has been a 51% correlation
between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new
plus existing single family home sales. The correlation has lessened
recently. For mortgage<i> refinancings</i> applications
were unchanged in March but they still have trended higher since
mid-2009.</p>
<p>The effective fixed interest rate on conventional 15-year
mortgages held roughly steady at 4.59% last week. For the month,
overall rates have been near the six year low. For 30-year mortgages
the rate also were steady at 5.19%. Rates reached a high of 5.79% in
early-June. Interest rates on fixed 15-year and 30-year mortgages are
closely correlated (near-90%) with the rate on 10-year Treasury
securities. Rates on adjustable one-year mortgages rose slightly to
6.95% last week.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331i.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331j.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<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/SURVEYW/@S5/@S5.HTM%22" style="color: black;"><b>MBA Mortgage Applications
(SA, 3/16/90=100)</b></a></th>
<th scope="col"><b>03/26/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>03/19/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>03/12/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>602.8</td>
<td>595.0</td>
<td>620.9</td>
<td>-49.5%</td>
<td>736.4</td>
<td>642.9</td>
<td>652.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>243.0</td>
<td>227.5</td>
<td>221.5</td>
<td>-9.3</td>
<td>263.5</td>
<td>345.4</td>
<td>424.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>2,707.8</td>
<td>2,744.7</td>
<td>2,955.9</td>
<td>-59.0</td>
<td>3,509.2</td>
<td>2,394.1</td>
<td>1,997.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">15-Year Mortgage Effective
Interest Rate (%)</td>
<td>4.59</td>
<td>4.53</td>
<td>4.60</td>
<td>4.77 (03/09)</td>
<td>4.85</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>6.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The Mortgage Bankers Association reported that while applications for refinancing were weak, purchase applications firmed during March. Overall, applications rose 2.5% this month after a 10.8% increase in February. The gain likely has [...]

U.S. Weekly Mortgage Applications Firmed In March

<!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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331e.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353"></p>
<p>In what probably is a voluntary trend, factory inventories are
accumulating. Manufacturers raised inventory levels by 0.5% last month
after a 0.3% gain during January. The increase was part of a trend that
has raised inventories by 0.6% during the last three months after an
8.7% drop during all of 2009. Much of that reversal reflects the upturn
in oil prices which has raised inventory values held at refineries by
40.9% y/y. Excluding oil, factory inventories nevertheless rose 0.3% in
February. A slight decline during the last three months contrasts with
a 10.3% rate of decumulation last year. Machinery inventories slipped
0.1% and by 1.5% during the last three months versus a 13.6% decline
last year. Electrical equipment inventories were roughly unchanged for
the month. Their 0.3% three-month decline reverses an 18.1% drop last
year. Similarly, inventories of computers &amp; electronic products
rose 0.6% and by 0.8% during the last three months after a 9.1% decline
in 2009.</p>
<p>Factory orders rose 0.6% last month and by 4.6% since November
after a 17.2% drop during 2009. However, the latest gain also was
increased by higher oil prices. Excluding oil (where orders equal
shipments), orders still were firm and rose 0.9% (7.0% y/y) after a
2.5% January increase. Orders for primary metals have been notably
strong and were up by one-third y/y. Machinery orders rose 5.1% last
month and their three-month change of 1.6% compares to a 25.0% drop
last year. Electrical equipment orders remain under some pressure but
the 3.0% decline since November is slower than a 19.2% drop during all
of last year. Orders for computers &amp; electronic products rose
1.4% during the last three months after a moderate 7.6% decline last
year.</p>
<p>Factory shipments slipped 0.1% last month after a modest
January gain. Nevertheless, the three-month gain of 2.3% follows a
15.2% drop last year. Higher oil prices played a role in the
turnaround. Yet excluding oil, shipments rose 2.2% over the last three
months after a 12.2% decline last year. Machinery shipments staged a
reversal of 1.4% since November after the 20.1% decline in 2009. Also,
a 0.4% three-month slip in shipments of electrical equipment compares
to an 18.5% drop last year. Primary metals shipments increased 2.3% in
February and by 10.8% since November with higher prices. Furniture
shipments rose a modest 1.1% since November after the 18.9% drop last
year.</p>
<p>The Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories and Orders (MSIO)
data are available in Haver's <b>USECON</b> database.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331f.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331g.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED01/@ED0101/@ED01016/@ED01016.HTM">Factory Survey</a>
(NAICS, %)</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>February</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>December</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Inventories</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-5.6</td>
<td>-8.7</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>3.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding
Transportation</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-5.9</td>
<td>-9.2</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>2.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">New Orders</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>-17.2</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>1.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding
Transportation</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>9.2</td>
<td>-15.8</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>1.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Shipments</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>-15.2</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>1.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding
Transportation</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>-15.3</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>1.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unfilled Orders</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>-6.5</td>
<td>-10.2</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>17.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding
Transportation</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>-3.6</td>
<td>-8.4</td>
<td>-1.4</td>
<td>8.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

In what probably is a voluntary trend, factory inventories are accumulating. Manufacturers raised inventory levels by 0.5% last month after a 0.3% gain during January. The increase was part of a trend that has raised inventories by [...]

U.S. Factory Inventories Continue To Accumulate

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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331d.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>It is not so unusual for the rate of unemployment to rise
early in an expansion, but this expansion has been in train for a while
and the rise in the rate is a bit chilling. Taking some of the sting
out of this event may be the German rate which has already been
announced for March since that rate is moving lower. Still the February
result for the Zone is just the sort of backsliding the EU Commission
and the ECB do not want to see. Spain remains major problem.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s worse is that this figure is reports as the EMU
inflation rate has taken a turn for the worse and is up by 1.5% Yr/Yr.
Granted energy is the driving force there but given the ECB&#8217;s
hyper-sensitivity to inflation and its focus on the headline rate, that
inflation report was not good news.</p>
<p>Around the world a number of reports today showed some
backsliding ranging from a reported slip in consumer confidence in the
UK, poor wage data featuring sharply cut mid-year bonus payments in
Japan and weak housing and retail reports from Australia. This is not
enough to put at question the ongoing global recovery, but it is a bit
deflating at a time that we are looking at growth ever so closely and
trying to get a sustainable recovery going. Rising inflation, even if
from oil prices, makes the situation even worse since everyone uses
energy and faces this challenge.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="7" scope="col"><b>Unemployment
Rate And Changes</b> </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; Rate</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">Level</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">Simple Changes</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Feb-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Jan-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Dec-09</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">3-Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">6-Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">12-Mo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;EU-Urate</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>9.5</td>
<td>9.4</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;EMU-Urate</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>9.9</td>
<td>9.9</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp;Unemployment rate and changes</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">M/M%</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">Changes (ar)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp; EU-U 000s</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>15.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;EMU-U 000s</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>13.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp;U-Rates</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">Level</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">Simple Changes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;Germany</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>0.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;France</td>
<td>10.1</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;Spain</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>18.9</td>
<td>18.9</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>2.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;USA</td>
<td>9.7</td>
<td>9.7</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>1.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;Japan</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>5.2</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>0.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

It is not so unusual for the rate of unemployment to rise early in an expansion, but this expansion has been in train for a while and the rise in the rate is a bit chilling. Taking some of the sting out of this event may be the German [...]

EU: Growth So Slow, You’d Hardly Know…

<!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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The rate of job loss has been slowing for a year, but a turn
to positive territory isn't yet at hand. The latest report from the
payroll processor ADP, in their National Employment Report, indicated
that February private nonfarm payroll levels declined 23,000 following
a revised 24,000 decline during January. The decline compared to the
Consensus expectation for a gain of 40,000 jobs. The latest reading was
the twenty-sixth consecutive monthly decline but it was the smallest of
the period. Earlier data were revised. /p&gt;
</p><p>ADP compiled the estimate from its database of individual
companies' payroll information. Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, the St.
Louis economic consulting firm, developed the methodology for
transforming the raw data into an economic indicator.</p>
<p>The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics will report February
payroll employment this Friday. For
comparison, the January decline of 24,000 in ADP's measure of private
nonfarm payrolls was accompanied by a similar loss of 18,000 jobs in
the BLS measure of private sector payrolls.</p>
According to ADP and Macro-Advisers, the
correlation between the monthly percentage change in the ADP estimate
and that in the BLS data is 0.90.
<p>ADP reported that private service-producing industry
employment rose for the second consecutive month with a gain of 28,000
(-1.3% y/y). Small-sized payrolls grew 15,000 (-0.9% y/y) while
medium-sized payrolls grew 10,000 (-1.4% y/y). These increases were
accompanied by a 3,000 increase (-1.9% y/y) in large service producing
payrolls.</p>
<p>In the goods producing sector employment fell another 51,000
during February (-8.7% y/y) but the three-month annual rate of change
eased again to -3.9% versus -18.1% one year ago. Small-sized payrolls
fell 27,000 (-9.4% y/y) while medium-sized payrolls fell 14,000 (-7.9%
y/y). Large payrolls fell 10,000 (-9.2% y/y). In the manufacturing
sector alone, payrolls fell 9,000 (-6.5% y/y). The three-month change
moderated to -1.1% from -17.5% last March.</p>

<p>The ADP National Employment Report data is maintained in
Haver's <b>USECON</b>database;
historical figures date back to December 2000. The figures in this
report cover only private sector jobs and exclude employment in the
public sector.The full
ADP National Employment Report can be found <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/pdf/FINAL_Report_February_10.pdf">here</a>
and the ADP methodology is explained <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/ADPNERMethodology.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/ADPNERMethodology.pdf">here</a>.</p>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><strong><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EB/@EB25/@EB25.HTM">ADP
National Employment
Report</a></strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>February</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>January</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>December</strong></th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2009</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2008</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2007</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Nonfarm Private Payroll
Employment (m/m Chg., 000s)</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>-24</td>
<td>-82</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>-4.9%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Small
Payroll (1-49)</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>-35</td>
<td>-2.1</td>
<td>-4.1</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>1.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Medium
Payroll (50-499)</td>
<td>-4</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>-20</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>-5.7</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Large
Payroll (&gt;500)</td>
<td>-7</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>-27</td>
<td>-3.5</td>
<td>-5.6</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</span>
</body></html>

The rate of job loss has been slowing for a year, but a turn to positive territory isn't yet at hand. The latest report from the payroll processor ADP, in their National Employment Report, indicated that February private nonfarm [...]

ADP Report: Private Sector Job Loss Disappoints Expectations

<!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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The rate of job loss has been slowing for a year, but a turn
to positive territory isn't yet at hand. The latest report from the
payroll processor ADP, in their National Employment Report, indicated
that February private nonfarm payroll levels declined 23,000 following
a revised 24,000 decline during January. The decline compared to the
Consensus expectation for a gain of 40,000 jobs. The latest reading was
the twenty-sixth consecutive monthly decline but it was the smallest of
the period. Earlier data were revised. /p&gt;
</p>
<p>ADP compiled the estimate from its database of individual
companies' payroll information. Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, the St.
Louis economic consulting firm, developed the methodology for
transforming the raw data into an economic indicator.</p>
<p>The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics will report February
payroll employment this Friday. For
comparison, the January decline of 24,000 in ADP's measure of private
nonfarm payrolls was accompanied by a similar loss of 18,000 jobs in
the BLS measure of private sector payrolls.</p>
According to ADP and Macro-Advisers, the
correlation between the monthly percentage change in the ADP estimate
and that in the BLS data is 0.90.
<p>ADP reported that private service-producing industry
employment rose for the second consecutive month with a gain of 28,000
(-1.3% y/y). Small-sized payrolls grew 15,000 (-0.9% y/y) while
medium-sized payrolls grew 10,000 (-1.4% y/y). These increases were
accompanied by a 3,000 increase (-1.9% y/y) in large service producing
payrolls.</p>
<p>In the goods producing sector employment fell another 51,000
during February (-8.7% y/y) but the three-month annual rate of change
eased again to -3.9% versus -18.1% one year ago. Small-sized payrolls
fell 27,000 (-9.4% y/y) while medium-sized payrolls fell 14,000 (-7.9%
y/y). Large payrolls fell 10,000 (-9.2% y/y). In the manufacturing
sector alone, payrolls fell 9,000 (-6.5% y/y). The three-month change
moderated to -1.1% from -17.5% last March.</p>
<p>The ADP National Employment Report data is maintained in
Haver's <b>USECON</b>database;
historical figures date back to December 2000. The figures in this
report cover only private sector jobs and exclude employment in the
public sector.The full
ADP National Employment Report can be found <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/pdf/FINAL_Report_February_10.pdf">here</a>
and the ADP methodology is explained <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/ADPNERMethodology.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/ADPNERMethodology.pdf">here</a>.</p>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><strong><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EB/@EB25/@EB25.HTM">ADP
National Employment
Report</a></strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>February</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>January</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>December</strong></th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2009</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2008</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2007</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Nonfarm Private Payroll
Employment (m/m Chg., 000s)</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>-24</td>
<td>-82</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>-4.9%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Small
Payroll (1-49)</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>-35</td>
<td>-2.1</td>
<td>-4.1</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>1.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Medium
Payroll (50-499)</td>
<td>-4</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>-20</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>-5.7</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Large
Payroll (&gt;500)</td>
<td>-7</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>-27</td>
<td>-3.5</td>
<td>-5.6</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</span>
<span id="articletitle">EU: Growth So Slow, You&#8217;d Hardly
Know&#8230;</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> March 31, 2010</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331d.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>It is not so unusual for the rate of unemployment to rise
early in an expansion, but this expansion has been in train for a while
and the rise in the rate is a bit chilling. Taking some of the sting
out of this event may be the German rate which has already been
announced for March since that rate is moving lower. Still the February
result for the Zone is just the sort of backsliding the EU Commission
and the ECB do not want to see. Spain remains major problem.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s worse is that this figure is reports as the EMU
inflation rate has taken a turn for the worse and is up by 1.5% Yr/Yr.
Granted energy is the driving force there but given the ECB&#8217;s
hyper-sensitivity to inflation and its focus on the headline rate, that
inflation report was not good news.</p>
<p>Around the world a number of reports today showed some
backsliding ranging from a reported slip in consumer confidence in the
UK, poor wage data featuring sharply cut mid-year bonus payments in
Japan and weak housing and retail reports from Australia. This is not
enough to put at question the ongoing global recovery, but it is a bit
deflating at a time that we are looking at growth ever so closely and
trying to get a sustainable recovery going. Rising inflation, even if
from oil prices, makes the situation even worse since everyone uses
energy and faces this challenge.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="7" scope="col"><b>Unemployment
Rate And Changes</b> </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; Rate</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">Level</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">Simple
Changes</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Feb-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Jan-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Dec-09</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">3-Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">6-Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">12-Mo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;EU-Urate</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>9.5</td>
<td>9.4</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;EMU-Urate</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>9.9</td>
<td>9.9</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp;Unemployment rate and changes</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">M/M%</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">Changes
(ar)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp; EU-U 000s</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>15.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;EMU-U 000s</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>13.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp;U-Rates</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">Level</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">Simple
Changes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;Germany</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>0.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;France</td>
<td>10.1</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;Spain</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>18.9</td>
<td>18.9</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>2.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;USA</td>
<td>9.7</td>
<td>9.7</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>1.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;Japan</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>5.2</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>0.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<span id="articletitle">U.S. Factory Inventories Continue
To Accumulate</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> March 31, 2010</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331e.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353"></p>
<p>In what probably is a voluntary trend, factory inventories are
accumulating. Manufacturers raised inventory levels by 0.5% last month
after a 0.3% gain during January. The increase was part of a trend that
has raised inventories by 0.6% during the last three months after an
8.7% drop during all of 2009. Much of that reversal reflects the upturn
in oil prices which has raised inventory values held at refineries by
40.9% y/y. Excluding oil, factory inventories nevertheless rose 0.3% in
February. A slight decline during the last three months contrasts with
a 10.3% rate of decumulation last year. Machinery inventories slipped
0.1% and by 1.5% during the last three months versus a 13.6% decline
last year. Electrical equipment inventories were roughly unchanged for
the month. Their 0.3% three-month decline reverses an 18.1% drop last
year. Similarly, inventories of computers &amp; electronic products
rose 0.6% and by 0.8% during the last three months after a 9.1% decline
in 2009.</p>
<p>Factory orders rose 0.6% last month and by 4.6% since November
after a 17.2% drop during 2009. However, the latest gain also was
increased by higher oil prices. Excluding oil (where orders equal
shipments), orders still were firm and rose 0.9% (7.0% y/y) after a
2.5% January increase. Orders for primary metals have been notably
strong and were up by one-third y/y. Machinery orders rose 5.1% last
month and their three-month change of 1.6% compares to a 25.0% drop
last year. Electrical equipment orders remain under some pressure but
the 3.0% decline since November is slower than a 19.2% drop during all
of last year. Orders for computers &amp; electronic products rose
1.4% during the last three months after a moderate 7.6% decline last
year.</p>
<p>Factory shipments slipped 0.1% last month after a modest
January gain. Nevertheless, the three-month gain of 2.3% follows a
15.2% drop last year. Higher oil prices played a role in the
turnaround. Yet excluding oil, shipments rose 2.2% over the last three
months after a 12.2% decline last year. Machinery shipments staged a
reversal of 1.4% since November after the 20.1% decline in 2009. Also,
a 0.4% three-month slip in shipments of electrical equipment compares
to an 18.5% drop last year. Primary metals shipments increased 2.3% in
February and by 10.8% since November with higher prices. Furniture
shipments rose a modest 1.1% since November after the 18.9% drop last
year.</p>
<p>The Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories and Orders (MSIO)
data are available in Haver's <b>USECON</b> database.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331f.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331g.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED01/@ED0101/@ED01016/@ED01016.HTM">Factory
Survey</a>
(NAICS, %)</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>February</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>December</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Inventories</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-5.6</td>
<td>-8.7</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>3.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding
Transportation</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-5.9</td>
<td>-9.2</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>2.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">New Orders</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>-17.2</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>1.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding
Transportation</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>9.2</td>
<td>-15.8</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>1.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Shipments</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>-15.2</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>1.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding
Transportation</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>-15.3</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>1.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unfilled Orders</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>-6.5</td>
<td>-10.2</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>17.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding
Transportation</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>-3.6</td>
<td>-8.4</td>
<td>-1.4</td>
<td>8.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<span id="articletitle">U.S. Weekly Mortgage Applications
Firmed In March</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a>March 31, 2010 </span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331h.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 363px; height: 265px; float: right;" align="left"></p>
<p>The Mortgage Bankers Association reported that while
applications for refinancing were weak, purchase applications firmed
during March. Overall, applications rose 2.5% this month after a 10.8%
increase in February.</p>
<p>The gain likely has been fueled by an $8,000 Federal tax
credit which is due to expire April 30. For last week, applications to <i>purchase</i>
a home rose 8.8% in March but that followed declines during the prior
two months. During the last ten years there has been a 51% correlation
between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new
plus existing single family home sales. The correlation has lessened
recently. For mortgage<i> refinancings</i> applications
were unchanged in March but they still have trended higher since
mid-2009.</p>
<p>The effective fixed interest rate on conventional 15-year
mortgages held roughly steady at 4.59% last week. For the month,
overall rates have been near the six year low. For 30-year mortgages
the rate also were steady at 5.19%. Rates reached a high of 5.79% in
early-June. Interest rates on fixed 15-year and 30-year mortgages are
closely correlated (near-90%) with the rate on 10-year Treasury
securities. Rates on adjustable one-year mortgages rose slightly to
6.95% last week.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331i.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100331j.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<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/SURVEYW/@S5/@S5.HTM%22" style="color: black;"><b>MBA Mortgage Applications
(SA, 3/16/90=100)</b></a></th>
<th scope="col"><b>03/26/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>03/19/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>03/12/10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>602.8</td>
<td>595.0</td>
<td>620.9</td>
<td>-49.5%</td>
<td>736.4</td>
<td>642.9</td>
<td>652.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>243.0</td>
<td>227.5</td>
<td>221.5</td>
<td>-9.3</td>
<td>263.5</td>
<td>345.4</td>
<td>424.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>2,707.8</td>
<td>2,744.7</td>
<td>2,955.9</td>
<td>-59.0</td>
<td>3,509.2</td>
<td>2,394.1</td>
<td>1,997.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">15-Year Mortgage Effective
Interest Rate (%)</td>
<td>4.59</td>
<td>4.53</td>
<td>4.60</td>
<td>4.77 (03/09)</td>
<td>4.85</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>6.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

ADP Report: Private Sector JobLoss Disappoints Expectations

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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100330k.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: right;" align="left"></p>
<p>Portugal, one of those problem countries in the Euro Area
along with Ireland, Spain and Greece is beginning to show some slight
signs of an improving economy . The first chart shows the year to year
increases in Retail Trade and in Industrial Production. According to
data announced today, the year to year increase in industrial
production was 2.4% in February, compared with 2.6% in January. These
were the first positive year to year changes since September 2008.
Retail trade experienced its first positive year to year change since
October, 2008, in December of last year. Although negative, the year to
year changes since then have been small, -0.73% in January and -0.43%
in February.</p>
<p>Another indication that the economy is beginning to recover is
the rise, though modest, in prices. The year to year increase in the
Harmonized Consumer Price Index turned positive for the first time
since February 09 in January of this year and has continued to rise in
February, as can be seen in the second chart.</p>
<p>While these signs are encouraging, much remains to be done to
redress Portugal's growing government deficit and debt, which are
illustrated in the third chart.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100330l.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100330m.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col"><b>Feb 10&nbsp;</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Jan 10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Dec 09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Previous Positive</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Date</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Industrial
Production&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
<td>2.42</td>
<td>2.56</td>
<td>-2.40</td>
<td>0.58</td>
<td>Sep 08</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Value of Retail
Trade (Y/Y%</td>
<td>0.34</td>
<td>0.73</td>
<td>1.77</td>
<td>2.06</td>
<td>Oct 08</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Harmonized
Consumer Price Index (Y/Y%)</td>
<td>0.18</td>
<td>0.09</td>
<td>-0.14</td>
<td>-0.07</td>
<td>Feb 09</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Portugal, one of those problem countries in the Euro Area along with Ireland, Spain and Greece is beginning to show some slight signs of an improving economy . The first chart shows the year to year increases in Retail Trade and in [...]

Some Positive Economic News From Portugal

<!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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100330j.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>Despite the month&#8217;s sharp drop in output, the chart of Japan&#8217;s
sequential growth rates is a very encouraging picture of an economy in
transition. Still it offers no iron-clad promise for the future. The
chart shows the drop of IP into recession. Of course the various lines
on the chart drop sequentially with the shortest growth rate going down
first (3-Mo) then the six-month rate and finally the Yr/Yr rate. Of
course the shortest period growth rate makes the largest swings as well
and we see that carried into recovery, there is a nice symmetry between
the lows and thighs of the 3-month and six mo growth rates. The Yr/Yr
rate is still rising.</p>
<p>After the clear recession gyration to new growth rate lows and
new growth rate highs, the various growth rate series have settled down
to a steady growth path at 25%- still too strong to be sustainable. In
the current month we see that path ratcheting a bit lower. Still the
six- and three-month growth rates are fairly steady and the Yr/Yr pace
is still rising.</p>
<p>As I said at the start there is nothing in this a pattern that
assures a soft landing ahead. But the behavior in the indices is just
what you would want and expect from a sold recovery that develops after
a downturn. Japan still needs to slow its year-over-year advance to
something that is more sustainable. And, beyond the numbers, Japan
needs to spread the recovery beyond its export sector.</p>
<p>The table shows us that for all the gyrations in IP overall IP
is still just 82.9% of its cycle peak. Its transportation output is
about 25% below its cycle peak. Investment goods lag the most at only
73.7% of their cycle peak while electric and gas output is closest to
full recovery at nearly 95% of its peak level of output in this cycle.</p>
<p>In the current quarter, despite the sharp drop in output in
February, IP is still growing in excess of 20 percent annual rates for
the headline series. Consumer goods, textiles and mining are the weak
sectors in the unfolding quarter-to-date. Auto output has been strong
but we may see a shift there due to the problems at Toyota. Still Japan
is putting up a very good profile despite the drop in IP in February.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="10" scope="col"> <b>Japan
Industrial Production Trends</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">m/m
%</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;" colspan="3">Saar
%</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Yr/Yr</td>
<td colspan="1" rowspan="2" scope="col">Qtr-2-Date<br>&nbsp;% AR</td>
<td colspan="1" rowspan="2" scope="col">%of Cycle<br>&nbsp;Peak</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">Seas Adjusted</td>
<td>Feb-10</td>
<td>Jan-10</td>
<td>Dec-09</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>-0.9%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>15.9%</td>
<td>18.4%</td>
<td>31.4%</td>
<td>-36.9%</td>
<td>22.3%</td>
<td>82.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">Total
Industry</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>15.8%</td>
<td>18.0%</td>
<td>29.8%</td>
<td>-35.7%</td>
<td>23.2%</td>
<td>83.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"> MFG</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>15.4%</td>
<td>18.2%</td>
<td>31.2%</td>
<td>-36.9%</td>
<td>21.7%</td>
<td>82.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Textiles</td>
<td>-4.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-11.9%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
<td>-4.9%</td>
<td>-20.8%</td>
<td>-4.2%</td>
<td>70.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">T-port</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>-2.9%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>41.3%</td>
<td>91.0%</td>
<td>-60.0%</td>
<td>26.9%</td>
<td>76.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;" class="grey3">
<td colspan="10" class="firstcol">Product
Group</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"> Consumer Gds</td>
<td>-2.7%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>-3.3%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>22.9%</td>
<td>-30.5%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>85.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"> Intermediate Gds</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>16.2%</td>
<td>20.3%</td>
<td>46.3%</td>
<td>-41.9%</td>
<td>24.0%</td>
<td>84.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"> Investment Gds</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>24.2%</td>
<td>30.9%</td>
<td>11.8%</td>
<td>-32.5%</td>
<td>28.8%</td>
<td>73.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Mining</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>23.7%</td>
<td>-3.1%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>-6.5%</td>
<td>9.5%</td>
<td>87.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">
Electric&amp;Gas</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>12.4%</td>
<td>21.6%</td>
<td>8.1%</td>
<td>-12.2%</td>
<td>16.3%</td>
<td>94.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Despite the month’s sharp drop in output, the chart of Japan’s sequential growth rates is a very encouraging picture of an economy in transition. Still it offers no iron-clad promise for the future. The chart shows the drop of IP into [...]

Is Japan Completing Its Transition To Growth From Recession?

<!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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100330a.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>News-wire headlines indicate that the rebound in home prices
has stalled. Seasonally adjusted, the Case Shiller Home Price Index
fell during January by 0.4% for the fourth consecutive month. This,
however, overstates the weakness since seasonally adjusted prices have
been rising slightly since last June. Regardless, the y/y trend paints
a different picture of improvement. The 0.7% decline versus last
January compares to a 19.0% y/y rate of decline at its worst one year
ago. That's not a barn-burning improvement, however, and it may not go
much further unless home sales improve.</p>
<p>The narrower 10 City Composite Index rose a seasonally
adjusted 0.4% (-0.0% y/y) for the second month. The 12-month decline
also eased from -19.4% at its worst. By far, these negative comparisons
outpace those during the 1990-91 recession when home prices fell 6.3%.</p>
<p>The performance of home prices continues to vary around the
country. During January, yearly price gains improved in twelve cities
including Boston, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Dallas
and Washington D.C. They continued down in seven cities including
Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, Detroit and Seattle.</p>
<p>The Case Shiller home price series are value-weighted, i.e., a
greater index weight is assigned to more expensive homes. The
S&amp;P/Case-Shiller home price series can be found in Haver's <b>USECON</b>
database and the city data highlighted below is in the <b>REGIONAL</b>
database.</p>
<p><b>Responding to the foreclosure crisis&#8212;A conference
summary </b>from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago is
available <a href="http://chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2010/cflapril2010_273b.pdf">here</a>.</p>
</span><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100330b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100330c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b>S&amp;P/Case-Shiller
Home Price Index (SA, Jan 00 = 100)</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January m/m</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>December m/m</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>November m/m</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Jan. y/y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"><b>20 City Composite Index</b></td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>-13.3%</td>
<td>-15.7%</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">&nbsp; <b>Regional
Indicators</b></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"><b>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Atlanta</b></td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>-2.1</td>
<td>-11.6</td>
<td>-8.5</td>
<td>0.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"><b>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Boston</b></td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>-4.9</td>
<td>-5.7</td>
<td>-4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"><b>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Chicago</b></td>
<td>-0.8</td>
<td>-0.7</td>
<td>-0.7</td>
<td>-4.3</td>
<td>-14.2</td>
<td>-10.0</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"><b>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Dallas</b></td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>4.2</td>
<td>-2.3</td>
<td>-3.2</td>
<td>0.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;<b>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Denver</b></td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>-0.0</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
<td>-4.9</td>
<td>-1.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"><b>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Los Angeles</b></td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>-15.4</td>
<td>-24.2</td>
<td>-5.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"><b>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
New York</b></td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>-5.4</td>
<td>-9.8</td>
<td>-7.4</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"><b>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
San Francisco</b></td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>9.1</td>
<td>-18.4</td>
<td>-24.3</td>
<td>-4.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

News-wire headlines indicate that the rebound in home prices has stalled. Seasonally adjusted, the Case Shiller Home Price Index fell during January by 0.4% for the fourth consecutive month. This, however, overstates the weakness [...]

Case-Shiller Home Price Index Hits A Brick Wall?

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 2010

Jump to: