Tom Moeller

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	 
 
 
 

 <a href="/comment/160729a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729a.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/160729b_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729b.png"></a>

Economic growth of 1.2% (SAAR, 1.2% y/y) during the second quarter followed a
0.8% Q1 gain, revised from 1.1%. GDP's increase disappointed expectations for a
2.6% rise in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Inventory decumulation
subtracted 1.2 percentage points from GDP growth. It was the largest of five
consecutive quarterly subtractions. Growth during 2015 was revised to 2.6% from
2.4% estimated earlier. The GDP price index increased 2.2% (1.2% y/y), the
quickest increase in a year. A 1.9% rise had been expected.
Accompanying the slowdown in overall output growth, domestic final demand
improved. A 2.1% rise (2.0% y/y) in domestic final sales was the quickest
increase in three quarters. Consumer spending growth led the improvement with a
4.2% rise (2.7% y/y), the quickest gain since Q4'14. It was led by an 8.4% rise
(4.4% y/y) in durable goods purchases. Recreational goods &amp; vehicle buying
jumped 14.3% (9.3% y/y), the quickest rise since Q1'12. Spending on home
furnishings &amp; appliances rose 8.3% (6.8% y/y) and motor vehicles buying
gained 4.5% (-0.8% y/y). In the nondurable goods area spending rose 6.0% (3.1%
y/y), powered by an 8.6% gain (2.7% y/y) in food &amp; beverage spending.
Apparel buying rose 4.1% (1.5% y/y), but gasoline &amp; fuel oil purchases
fell 1.2% (+2.4% y/y). Spending on services strengthened 3.0% (2.3% y/y), the
largest increase since Q4'14. It reflected a strengthened 4.2% rise (1.2% y/y)
in housing &amp; utilities and a 3.8% increase (4.2% y/y) in medical care.
Recreation spending declined, however, at a 4.5% rate (+1.3% y/y).
Outside of personal spending, final demand declined. Business fixed
investment fell at a 2.2% rate (-1.3% y/y), the third consecutive quarterly
shortfall. Structures spending fell 7.9% (-7.0% y/y) and equipment purchases
were off 3.5% (-1.9% y/y). Computer purchases declined 5.9% (+3.8% y/y) but
industrial equipment buying gained 12.0% (3.1% y/y). Purchases of intellectual
property products rose 3.5% (3.5% y/y).
Residential investment declined at a 6.1% annual rate (+6.2% y/y), the first
decline since Q1'14.

 <a href="/comment/160729c_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729c.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/160729d_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729d.png"></a>
 
Spending by governments eased 0.9% (+0.9% y/y) as state &amp; local
government purchases fell 1.3% (+1.0% y/y). Federal government spending eased
0.2% (+0.7% y/y), but defense spending declined 3.0% (-0.8% y/y).
Foreign trade added 0.2 percentage points to overall economic growth. The
addition was due to a 1.4% rise in exports (-1.2% y/y) following three straight
quarters of decline. Goods exports rose 2.7% (-1.3% y/y) while services exports
eased 0.9% -1.1% y/y). Imports slipped 0.4% (+0.2% y/y), off for the second
straight quarter. Goods imports fell 0.9% (-0.4% y/y), but services imports
gained 1.5% (2.9% y/y). 
The GDP price index increased 2.2% (1.2% y/y) as the residential investment
price index jumped 5.2% (3.1% y/y). Higher energy prices raised the PCE price
index 1.9% (0.9% y/y). Excluding food &amp; energy, the PCE price index
increased 1.7% (1.6% y/y). The business fixed investment price index gained 1.1%
(0.5% y/y).&nbsp; 
The GDP figures can be found in Haver's USECON and USNA
database. USNA contains virtually all of the Bureau of Economic Analysis'
detail in the national accounts, including the integrated economic accounts and
the recently added GDP data for U.S. Territories. The Action Economics consensus
estimates can be found in AS1REPNA.

 <a href="/comment/160729f_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729f.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/160729g_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729g.png"></a>
 
 
<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
	
 


 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" ><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E7/@E701/@E701.HTM" ;>Chained
 2009 $ (%, AR</a>)</th>
 <th scope="col" >Q2'16 (Advance Estimate)</th>
 <th scope="col" >Q1'16 </th>
 <th scope="col" >Q4'15</th>
 <th scope="col" >Q2'16 Y/Y</th>
 <th scope="col" >2015</th>
 <th scope="col" >2014</th>
 <th scope="col" >2013</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Gross Domestic Product</td>
 <td >&nbsp;1.2</td>
 <td >&nbsp;0.8</td>
 <td >&nbsp;0.9</td>
 <td >1.2</td>
 <td >2.6</td>
 <td >2.4</td>
 <td >1.7</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Inventory Effect</td>
 <td >-1.2</td>
 <td >-0.4</td>
 <td >-0.4</td>
 <td >-0.7</td>
 <td >0.2</td>
 <td >0.0</td>
 <td >0.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Final Sales</td>
 <td >2.4</td>
 <td >1.3</td>
 <td >1.2 </td>
 <td >1.9</td>
 <td >2.4</td>
 <td >2.5</td>
 <td >1.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Foreign Trade Effect</td>
 <td >0.2</td>
 <td >0.0</td>
 <td >-0.5</td>
 <td >-0.1 </td>
 <td >-0.7</td>
 <td >-0.1</td>
 <td >0.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Domestic Final Sales</td>
 <td >2.1</td>
 <td >1.2</td>
 <td >1.7</td>
 <td >2.0</td>
 <td >3.1</td>
 <td >2.6</td>
 <td >1.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="grey3">
 <td class="firstcol" colSpan="8" >Demand Components</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Personal Consumption Expenditures</td>
 <td >4.2</td>
 <td >1.6</td>
 <td >2.3</td>
 <td >2.7</td>
 <td >3.2</td>
 <td >2.9</td>
 <td >1.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Business Fixed Investment</td>
 <td >-2.2</td>
 <td >-3.4</td>
 <td >-3.3</td>
 <td >-1.3</td>
 <td >2.1</td>
 <td >6.0</td>
 <td >3.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Residential Investment</td>
 <td >-6.1</td>
 <td >7.8</td>
 <td >11.5</td>
 <td >6.2</td>
 <td >11.7</td>
 <td >3.5</td>
 <td >11.9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Government Spending</td>
 <td >-0.9</td>
 <td >1.6</td>
 <td >0.1</td>
 <td >0.9</td>
 <td >1.8</td>
 <td >-0.9</td>
 <td >-2.9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="grey3">
 <td class="firstcol" colSpan="8" >Chain-Type Price Index</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >GDP&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
 <td >2.2</td>
 <td >0.5</td>
 <td >0.8</td>
 <td >1.2</td>
 <td >1.1</td>
 <td >1.8</td>
 <td >1.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Personal Consumption Expenditures</td>
 <td >1.9</td>
 <td >0.3</td>
 <td >0.4</td>
 <td >0.9</td>
 <td >0.3</td>
 <td >1.5</td>
 <td >1.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Less Food/Energy</td>
 <td >1.7</td>
 <td >2.1</td>
 <td >1.2</td>
 <td >1.6</td>
 <td >1.4</td>
 <td >1.6</td>
 <td >1.5</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>


</html>

Economic growth of 1.2% (SAAR, 1.2% y/y) during the second quarter followed a 0.8% Q1 gain, revised from 1.1%. GDP's increase disappointed expectations for a 2.6% rise in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Inventory decumulation [...]

U.S. GDP Growth Disappoints as Inventories Are Reduced

Robert Brusca

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	 
 
 
 
 

<a href="/comment/160729e_big.png" name="modal"><img class="large" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729e.png" align="left"></a>


The EU and EMU rates of unemployment were steady in June. Among the earliest EMU members unemployment fell in June in only two of 11 counties, Spain and The Netherlands. The rate also fell in Greece for April which is the most topical observation for Greece.

Despite the hiatus in the unemployment rate dropping in June, rates of unemployment are still falling on a broad front over longer spans of time: three months, six-months and twelve-months.

Still there remains a chasm of difference between Germany's unemployment rate and everyone else's. Germany's rate of unemployment has stayed at a post-reunification low. Apart from Germany, only Ireland has a rate of unemployment that is below its historic median back to 1991. However, Finland is close to its 50% queue standing at the 51.3 percentile mark.

Levels of unemployment are falling for EU and for EMU but the annualized pace of the drop has been slowing. For Luxembourg, Italy and Austria rates of unemployment hover in the top 12% of all rates they have experienced historically since early 1991.For these three countries recovery continues to elude the labor market. Belgium and Austria show signs of some recovery reversal. Belgium has inflation rising and has its rate of unemployment up by four-tenths of a percentage point over three-months. For Austria the unemployment rate is up by three-tenths of a percentage point over three-months and by five-tenths over 12-months.

Growth
The early read on EMU GDP has it rising at a 1.2% annualized pace in Q2 and by 1.6% Year-on-year. Both of those rates represent a reduction from Q1 when GDP rose at a 2.2% pace in the quarter and by 1.7% Year-over-year. France's growth rate was reported as flat but the act of compounding its quarterly rate produces a slight contraction in Q2 and a year-on-year pace of just 1.4%. France's PMI data have been floating barely North and sometimes South of the 50 diffusion level for some time. A decline in quarterly French GDP is not surprising in that context.

 Inflation
The July EMU inflation reading also is on offer today and it shows inflation up by 0.1% Year-on-year with core inflation up by 0.8% Year-on-year. Headline inflation has turned positive again. And three-month compounded rates of inflation are above 2% for the headline but not for the Core. The ECB tends to focus on the year-over-year headline rate with the objective of keeping it just below 2%. Inflation remains well short of that objective, but there is some discernable up-creep.

The global economy news round-up
Economic reports remain somewhat confused or in flux. In the U.S. GDP disappointed as corporate investment weakness blunted a sharp pick-up by consumers to hold the Q2 GDP gain near 4% instead of north of 2% as had been expected. In Japan a whole barrage of data showed weaker retail sales, weaker household consumption, dropping prices, a slide in housing and a drop in auto production. There was a pickup in overall industrial production to balance all that negative news. But in the biggest news, the BoJ failed to impress markets with its decision last night to step-up its ETF purchases deciding neither to deepen its negative rate objective nor to resort to ‘helicopter' money. It did double its lending program.

The Outlook
Globally economic conditions remain mixed. It is hard to argue whether economic growth rates are really changing speeds or not. Governments and central banks continue to try to take action but nothing has impressed markets. The outlook remains guarded. In the U.S., the Fed is playing it day by day. The IMF has recently reduced its outlook slightly. The aftermath of Brexit overhangs Europe. In its meeting today the BOJ has cut back its expectations for inflation and for growth despite its new policy actions. Global conditions remain in flux with more of the risk seeming to fall on the down-side.


<img border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729.png" width="660" height="614">
</html>

The EU and EMU rates of unemployment were steady in June. Among the earliest EMU members unemployment fell in June in only two of 11 counties, Spain and The Netherlands. The rate also fell in Greece for April which is the most topical [...]

Euro Area Unemployment Rates Steady. Down-trend Remains in Place

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 


 <a href="/comment/160729l_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729l.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/160729m_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729m.png"></a>




Chicago purchasing managers reported that their Business Barometer slipped to
55.8 this month following an unrevised jump during June to 56.8. The figure
remained near the highest level since January 2015, and exceeded expectations
for 54.0 in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.
Haver Analytics constructs an ISM-Adjusted Index using the Chicago
numbers, comparable to the overall ISM index to be released Monday. Our figure
increased to 54.2, the highest level since October. During the last ten years,
there has been a 61% correlation between the adjusted Chicago Purchasing
Managers index and real GDP growth.
The production series fell to 54.6 after a jump to 56.3, and the new orders
index declined to 59.3 from a strong 63.2. The order backlog measure fell to 56.2
from 59.7. Working the other way, the inventory index increased to 52.0 from
50.0, and the supplier delivery series gained to 53.1, indicating slightly
slower product delivery speeds.&nbsp; 
The employment figure rebounded to 52.2, its highest level since March.
During the last ten years, there has been an 80% correlation between the
employment figure and the m/m change in factory sector employment. 
The prices paid reading eased to 55.1, but remained up sharply from the
February low of 41.1. A lessened 20% (NSA) of respondents reported paying higher
prices while a slightly higher 11% paid less.
The MNI Chicago Report is produced by MNI/Deutsche Borse Group in partnership
with ISM-Chicago. The survey covers a sample of over 200 purchasing
professionals in the Chicago area with a monthly response rate of about 50%. The
ISM-Adjusted headline index is calculated by Haver Analytics using these data to
construct a figure with the ISM methodology. The figures can be found in Haver's
SURVEYS database. The Consensus expectations figure is available in AS1REPNA.

 <a href="/comment/160729n_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729n.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/160729o_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729o.png"></a>



<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
	
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" >Chicago Purchasing Managers Index (%, SA)</th>
 <th scope="col" >Jul</th>
 <th scope="col" >Jun</th>
 <th scope="col" >May</th>
 <th scope="col" >Jul '15</th>
 <th scope="col" >2015</th>
 <th scope="col" >2014</th>
 <th scope="col" >2013</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >General Business Barometer</td>
 <td >55.8</td>
 <td >56.8</td>
 <td >49.3</td>
 <td >53.7</td>
 <td >50.3</td>
 <td >60.7</td>
 <td >56.0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >ISM-Adjusted General Business Barometer</td>
 <td >54.2</td>
 <td >52.9</td>
 <td >48.0</td>
 <td >53.3</td>
 <td >51.6</td>
 <td >59.3</td>
 <td >54.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Production</td>
 <td >54.6</td>
 <td >56.3</td>
 <td >47.4</td>
 <td >58.8</td>
 <td >52.5</td>
 <td >64.5</td>
 <td >58.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;New Orders</td>
 <td >59.3</td>
 <td >63.2</td>
 <td >48.8</td>
 <td >56.8</td>
 <td >50.4</td>
 <td >63.8</td>
 <td >59.1</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Order Backlogs</td>
 <td >56.2</td>
 <td >59.7</td>
 <td >47.7</td>
 <td >47.0</td>
 <td >44.4</td>
 <td >54.2</td>
 <td >48.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Inventories</td>
 <td >52.0</td>
 <td >50.0</td>
 <td >37.9</td>
 <td >53.7</td>
 <td >52.1</td>
 <td >55.9</td>
 <td >45.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Employment</td>
 <td >52.2</td>
 <td >45.0</td>
 <td >48.3</td>
 <td >47.1 </td>
 <td >50.3</td>
 <td >56.0</td>
 <td >55.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Supplier Deliveries</td>
 <td >53.1</td>
 <td >50.0</td>
 <td >57.8</td>
 <td >50.0</td>
 <td >52.5</td>
 <td >56.5</td>
 <td >52.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Prices Paid</td>
 <td >55.1</td>
 <td >55.7</td>
 <td >56.5</td>
 <td >52.4</td>
 <td >46.8</td>
 <td >61.0</td>
 <td >59.8</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;

</body>

</html>

Chicago purchasing managers reported that their Business Barometer slipped to 55.8 this month following an unrevised jump during June to 56.8. The figure remained near the highest level since January 2015, and exceeded expectations [...]

Chicago Purchasing Managers Index Eases

Carol Stone, CBE

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	 
 
 
 
 
 <a href="/comment/160729h_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729h.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/160729i_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729i.png"></a>


The employment cost index for civilian workers increased 0.6% (2.3% y/y) during Q2'16 following a similar Q1 rise. This latest gain was in line with the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Wages and salaries also increased 0.6% (2.5% y/y) after a 0.7% rise, and benefits rose 0.5% (2.0% y/y), the same their Q1 gain.

The employment cost index for private industry workers also went up 0.6% in Q2'16 (2.4% y/y), the same as in Q1. Among industries, the index for manufacturing workers rose 0.5% (2.3% y/y), a bit easier than the 0.6% in Q1. Construction worker compensation also slowed, to 0.5% in Q2 (2.5% y/y) from 0.8% in Q1. Service industries were somewhat mixed, with trade, transportation and utilities up 1.2% in Q2 (3.0% y/y) from 0.7% in Q1, and information up 0.7% (1.8% y/y) from 0.1%. But compensation of finance industry workers gained only 0.2% in Q2 (1.9% y/y), down from 0.7% in Q1. Education and health sector workers pay was up 0.4% (1.9% y/y) in Q2 versus 0.6% the quarter before. Leisure and hospitality sector workers saw their compensation rise 1.1% (2.6% y/y), just a bit more than the 1.0% in Q1. In the public sector, compensation of state and local government workers was up 0.5% (2.3% y/y), the same as in Q1.

Wages and salaries in private industry rose 0.6% (2.5% y/y) in Q2 following a 0.7% increase the quarter before. Factory sector wages were also up 0.6% (2.5% y/y) and 0.7% in Q1, and the gain in the construction sector was 0.5% (2.7% y/y), down from 0.8% in Q1. Wage gains in service industries generally improved in Q2, with trade, transportation and utilities up 1.0% (2.9% y/y) from 0.8% in Q1, and the information sector up 1.2% (2.7% y/y) from 0.5%. Professional and business service wages and salaries gained 0.9% (3.0% y/y), up from 0.4% in Q1. As with total compensation, the finance sector saw a slowdown, to 0.3% (2.2% y/y) from 0.9% in Q1. Leisure and hospitality wages were firm at 1.1% (2.9% y/y, the same as in Q1. State and local government workers' wage gains were steady at 0.4% (1.7% y/y).

Benefits for private industry workers grew 0.4% (1.7% y/y) in Q2, following a 0.5% increase in Q1. The rise in manufacturing was steady at 0.4% (1.8% y/y), and the construction, natural resources and maintenance occupations saw a 0.3% (1.6% y/y) benefit increase, up slightly from 0.2% in Q1. Private service industry benefits overall firmed in Q2 to a 0.6% advance (1.8% y/y) from 0.3% in Q1.
In the public sector, state and local government worker benefits again increased 0.6% (3.4% y/y), the same as in Q1.

The employment cost index figures are available in Haver's USECON database. Consensus estimates come from the Action Economics survey, carried in Haver's AS1REPNA database.

 <a href="/comment/160729j_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729j.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/160729k_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729k.png"></a>



	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

 
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Civilian Workers (%)</th>
 <th scope="col" >Q2'16</th>
 <th scope="col" >Q1'16</th>
 <th scope="col" >Q4'15</th>
 <th scope="col" >Q2 Y/Y</th>
 <th scope="col" >2015</th>
 <th scope="col" >2014</th>
 <th scope="col" >2013</th>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Compensation</td>
 <td >0.6</td>
 <td >0.6</td>
 <td >0.5</td>
 <td >2.3</td>
 <td >2.1</td>
 <td >2.1</td>
 <td >1.9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Wages &amp; Salaries</td>
 <td >0.6</td>
 <td >0.7</td>
 <td >0.5</td>
 <td >2.5</td>
 <td >2.2</td>
 <td >1.9</td>
 <td >1.7</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Benefit Costs</td>
 <td >0.5</td>
 <td >0.5</td>
 <td >0.6</td>
 <td >2.0</td>
 <td >2.0</td>
 <td >2.5</td>
 <td >2.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Private Industry Workers (%)</th>
 <th scope="col" ></th>
 <th scope="col" >&nbsp;</th>
 <th scope="col" >&nbsp;</th>
 <th scope="col" >&nbsp;</th>
 <th scope="col" >&nbsp;</th>
 <th scope="col" >&nbsp;</th>
 <th scope="col" >&nbsp;</th>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Compensation</td>
 <td >0.6</td>
 <td >0.6</td>
 <td >0.5</td>
 <td >2.4</td>
 <td >2.1</td>
 <td >2.1</td>
 <td >1.9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Wages &amp; Salaries</td>
 <td >0.6</td>
 <td >0.7</td>
 <td >0.6</td>
 <td >2.6</td>
 <td >2.3</td>
 <td >2.0</td>
 <td >1.9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Benefit Costs</td>
 <td >0.4</td>
 <td >0.5</td>
 <td >0.4</td>
 <td >1.7</td>
 <td >1.6</td>
 <td >2.3</td>
 <td >1.9</td>
 </tr>
 
 
 


</html>

The employment cost index for civilian workers increased 0.6% (2.3% y/y) during Q2'16 following a similar Q1 rise. This latest gain was in line with the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Wages and salaries also increased 0.6% (2.5% [...]

U.S. Employment Cost Index Shows Steady Gain

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	 
 
 
 
 

<a href="/comment/160729e_big.png" name="modal"><img class="large" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729e.png" align="left"></a>

The EU and EMU rates of unemployment were steady in June. Among the earliest EMU members unemployment fell in June in only two of 11 counties, Spain and The Netherlands. The rate also fell in Greece for April which is the most topical observation for Greece. 

Despite the hiatus in the unemployment rate dropping in June, rates of unemployment are still falling on a broad front over longer spans of time: three months, six-months and twelve-months. 

Still there remains a chasm of difference between Germany's unemployment rate and everyone else's. Germany's rate of unemployment has stayed at a post-reunification low. Apart from Germany, only Ireland has a rate of unemployment that is below its historic median back to 1991. However, Finland is close to its 50% queue standing at the 51.3 percentile mark.

Levels of unemployment are falling for EU and for EMU but the annualized pace of the drop has been slowing. For Luxembourg, Italy and Austria rates of unemployment hover in the top 12% of all rates they have experienced historically since early 1991.For these three countries recovery continues to elude the labor market. Belgium and Austria show signs of some recovery reversal. Belgium has inflation rising and has its rate of unemployment up by four-tenths of a percentage point over three-months. For Austria the unemployment rate is up by three-tenths of a percentage point over three-months and by five-tenths over 12-months. 

Growth
The early read on EMU GDP has it rising at a 1.2% annualized pace in Q2 and by 1.6% Year-on-year. Both of those rates represent a reduction from Q1 when GDP rose at a 2.2% pace in the quarter and by 1.7% Year-over-year. France's growth rate was reported as flat but the act of compounding its quarterly rate produces a slight contraction in Q2 and a year-on-year pace of just 1.4%. France's PMI data have been floating barely North and sometimes South of the 50 diffusion level for some time. A decline in quarterly French GDP is not surprising in that context. 

 Inflation
The July EMU inflation reading also is on offer today and it shows inflation up by 0.1% Year-on-year with core inflation up by 0.8% Year-on-year. Headline inflation has turned positive again. And three-month compounded rates of inflation are above 2% for the headline but not for the Core. The ECB tends to focus on the year-over-year headline rate with the objective of keeping it just below 2%. Inflation remains well short of that objective, but there is some discernable up-creep. 

The global economy news round-up
Economic reports remain somewhat confused or in flux. In the U.S. GDP disappointed as corporate investment weakness blunted a sharp pick-up by consumers to hold the Q2 GDP gain near 4% instead of north of 2% as had been expected. In Japan a whole barrage of data showed weaker retail sales, weaker household consumption, dropping prices, a slide in housing and a drop in auto production. There was a pickup in overall industrial production to balance all that negative news. But in the biggest news, the BoJ failed to impress markets with its decision last night to step-up its ETF purchases deciding neither to deepen its negative rate objective nor to resort to "helicopter" money. It did double its lending program. 

The Outlook
Globally economic conditions remain mixed. It is hard to argue whether economic growth rates are really changing speeds or not. Governments and central banks continue to try to take action but nothing has impressed markets. The outlook remains guarded. In the U.S., the Fed is playing it day by day. The IMF has recently reduced its outlook slightly. The aftermath of Brexit overhangs Europe. In its meeting today the BOJ has cut back its expectations for inflation and for growth despite its new policy actions. Global conditions remain in flux with more of the risk seeming to fall on the down-side. 


<img border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/160729.png" width="630" height="500">
</html>

<html>

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<title>Chicago Purchasing Managers Index Recovers Sharply by Tom Moeller&nbsp;
July 29</title>
</head>

<body>

 

Economic growth of 1.2% (SAAR, 1.2% y/y) during the second quarter followed a
0.8% Q1 gain, revised from 1.1%. GDP's increase disappointed expectations for a
2.6% rise in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Inventory decumulation
subtracted 1.2 percentage points from GDP growth. It was the largest of five
consecutive quarterly subtractions. Growth during 2015 was revised to 2.6% from
2.4% estimated earlier. The GDP price index increased 2.2% (1.2% y/y), the
quickest increase in a year. A 1.9% rise had been expected.
Accompanying the slowdown in overall output growth, domestic final demand
improved. A 2.1% rise (2.0% y/y) in domestic final sales was the quickest
increase in three quarters. Consumer spending growth led the improvement with a
4.2% rise (2.7% y/y), the quickest gain since Q4'14. It was led by an 8.4% rise
(4.4% y/y) in durable goods purchases. Recreational goods &amp; vehicle buying
jumped 14.3% (9.3% y/y), the quickest rise since Q1'12. Spending on home
furnishings &amp; appliances rose 8.3% (6.8% y/y) and motor vehicles buying
gained 4.5% (-0.8% y/y). In the nondurable goods area spending rose 6.0% (3.1%
y/y), powered by an 8.6% gain in (2.7% y/y) food &amp; beverage spending.
Apparel buying rose 4.1% (1.5% y/y), but gasoline &amp; fuel oil oil purchases
fell 1.2% (+2.4% y/y). Spending on services strengthened 3.0% (2.3% y/y), the
largest increase since Q4'14. It reflected a strengthened 4.2% rise (1.2% y/y)
in housing &amp; utilities and a 3.8% increase (4.2% y/y) in medical care.
Recreation spending declined, however, at a 4.5% rate (+1.3% y/y).
Outside of personal spending, final demand declined. Business fixed
investment fell at a 2.2% rate (-1.3% y/y), the third consecutive quarterly
shortfall. Structures spending fell 7.9% (-7.0% y/y) and equipment purchases
were off 3.5% (-1.9% y/y). Computer purchases declined 5.9% (+3.8% y/y) but
industrial equipment buying gained 12.0% (3.1% y/y). Purchases of intellectual
property products rose 3.5% (3.5% y/y).
Residential investment declined at a 6.1% annual rate (+6.2% y/y), the first
decline since Q1'14.
Spending by governments eased 0.9% (+0.9% y/y) as state &amp; local
government purchases fell 1.3% (+1.0% y/y). Federal government spending eased
0.2% (+0.7% y/y), but defense spending declined 3.0% (-0.8% y/y).
Foreign trade added 0.2 percentage points to overall economic growth. The
addition was due to a 1.4% rise in exports (-1.2% y/y) following three straight
quarters of decline. Goods exports rose 2.7% (-1.3% y/y while services exports
eased 0.9% -1.1% y/y). Imports slipped 0.4% (+0.2% y/y), off for the second
straight quarter. Goods imports fell 0.9% (-0.4% y/y), but services imports
gained 1.5% (2.9% y/y). 
The GDP price index increased 2.2% (1.2% y/y) as the residential investment
price index jumped 5.2% (3.1% y/y). Higher energy prices raised the PCE price
index 1.9% (0.9% y/y). Excluding food &amp; energy, the PCE price index
increased 1.7% (1.6% y/y). The business fixed investment price index gained 1.1%
(0.5% y/y).&nbsp; 
The GDP figures can be found in Haver's USECON and USNA
database. USNA contains virtually all of the Bureau of Economic Analysis'
detail in the national accounts, including the integrated economic accounts and
the recently added GDP data for U.S. Territories. The Action Economics consensus
estimates can be found in AS1REPNA.
&nbsp;
<table width="1782" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="746"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E7/@E701/@E701.HTM" ;>Chained
 2009 $ (%, AR</a>)</th>
 <th scope="col" width="147">Q2'16 (Advance Estimate)</th>
 <th scope="col" width="147">Q1'16 </th>
 <th scope="col" width="147">Q4'15</th>
 <th scope="col" width="147">Q2'16 Y/Y</th>
 <th scope="col" width="148">2015</th>
 <th scope="col" width="148">2014</th>
 <th scope="col" width="148">2013</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">Gross Domestic Product</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">&nbsp;1.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">&nbsp;0.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">&nbsp;0.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">2.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">2.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.7</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">&nbsp; Inventory Effect</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-1.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-0.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-0.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-0.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">0.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">0.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">0.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">Final Sales</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">2.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.2 </td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">2.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">2.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">&nbsp; Foreign Trade Effect</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-0.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-0.1 </td>
 <td align="center" width="148">-0.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">-0.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">0.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">Domestic Final Sales</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">2.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">2.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">3.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">2.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="grey3">
 <td class="firstcol" colSpan="7" width="1630">Demand Components</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">Personal Consumption Expenditures</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">4.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">2.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">2.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">3.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">2.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">Business Fixed Investment</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-2.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-3.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-3.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-1.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">2.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">6.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">3.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">Residential Investment</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-6.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">7.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">11.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">6.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">11.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">3.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">11.9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">Government Spending</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-0.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">&nbsp;1.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.9s</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">-0.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">-2.9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="grey3">
 <td class="firstcol" colSpan="7" width="1630">Chain-Type Price Index</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">GDP&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">2.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">Personal Consumption Expenditures</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">0.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">&nbsp;Less Food/Energy</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">2.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.5</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;
Chicago Purchasing Managers Index Recovers Sharply 
by <a href="http://haver.com/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;July 29, 2016
Chicago purchasing managers reported that their Business Barometer surged to
56.8 this month following a May decline to 49.3. The figure was at the highest
level since January 2015, and exceeded expectations for 50.4 in the Action
Economics Forecast Survey.
Haver Analytics constructs an ISM-Adjusted Index using the Chicago
numbers, comparable to the overall ISM index to be released tomorrow. Our figure
increased to 52.9, the highest level since October. During the last ten years,
there has been a 61% correlation between the adjusted Chicago Purchasing
Managers index and real GDP growth.
Increases in the component series were widespread. Most notable was a 14.4
point gain in the new orders index to 63.2, the highest level since October
2014. The order backlog measure also surged 12.0 points to the highest level
(59.7) since March 2011. The production and inventory indexes increased
moderately to 56.3 and 50.0, respectively.
The employment figure also declined 3.3 points to 45.0, the lowest level
since November 2009. During the last ten years, there has been an 80%
correlation between the employment figure and the m/m change in factory sector
employment. Supplier delivery speeds quickened, prompting a decline in the
index.
The prices paid reading eased to 55.7, leaving the Q2 average of 56.4 above
the Q1 mean of 43.3. An increased 25% (NSA) of respondents reported paying
higher prices while 10% paid less.
The MNI Chicago Report is produced by MNI/Deutsche Borse Group in partnership
with ISM-Chicago. The survey covers a sample of over 200 purchasing
professionals in the Chicago area with a monthly response rate of about 50%. The
ISM-Adjusted headline index is calculated by Haver Analytics using these data to
construct a figure with the ISM methodology. The figures can be found in Haver's
SURVEYS database. The Consensus expectations figure is available in AS1REPNA.
<table width="1782" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" width="984">Chicago Purchasing Managers Index (%, SA)</th>
 <th scope="col" width="113">Jul</th>
 <th scope="col" width="113">Jun</th>
 <th scope="col" width="113">May</th>
 <th scope="col" width="113">Jun '15</th>
 <th scope="col" width="114">2015</th>
 <th scope="col" width="114">2014</th>
 <th scope="col" width="114">2013</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">General Business Barometer</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">56.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">49.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">49.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">50.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">60.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">56.0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">ISM-Adjusted General Business Barometer</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">52.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">48.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">49.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">51.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">59.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">54.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp;&nbsp;Production</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">56.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">47.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">50.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">52.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">64.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">58.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp;&nbsp;New Orders</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">63.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">48.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">51.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">50.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">63.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">59.1</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp;&nbsp;Order Backlogs</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">59.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">47.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">42.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">44.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">54.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">48.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp;&nbsp;Inventories</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">50.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">37.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">47.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">52.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">55.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">45.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp;&nbsp;Employment</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">45.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">48.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">47.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">50.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">56.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">55.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp;&nbsp;Supplier Deliveries</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">50.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">57.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">50.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">52.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">56.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">52.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp;&nbsp;Prices Paid</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">55.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">56.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">50.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">46.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">61.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">59.8</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;

</body>

</html>

<html>

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<title>Chicago Purchasing Managers Index Recovers Sharply by Tom Moeller&nbsp;
July 29</title>
</head>

<body>

 

Economic growth of 1.2% (SAAR, 1.2% y/y) during the second quarter followed a
0.8% Q1 gain, revised from 1.1%. GDP's increase disappointed expectations for a
2.6% rise in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Inventory decumulation
subtracted 1.2 percentage points from GDP growth. It was the largest of five
consecutive quarterly subtractions. Growth during 2015 was revised to 2.6% from
2.4% estimated earlier. The GDP price index increased 2.2% (1.2% y/y), the
quickest increase in a year. A 1.9% rise had been expected.
The GDP figures can be found in Haver's USECON and USNA
database. USNA contains virtually all of the Bureau of Economic Analysis'
detail in the national accounts, including the integrated economic accounts and
the recently added GDP data for U.S. Territories. The Action Economics consensus
estimates can be found in AS1REPNA.
&nbsp;
<table width="1782" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="746"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E7/@E701/@E701.HTM" ;>Chained
 2009 $ (%, AR</a>)</th>
 <th scope="col" width="147">Q2'16 (Advance Estimate)</th>
 <th scope="col" width="147">Q1'16 </th>
 <th scope="col" width="147">Q4'15</th>
 <th scope="col" width="147">Q2'16 Y/Y</th>
 <th scope="col" width="148">2015</th>
 <th scope="col" width="148">2014</th>
 <th scope="col" width="148">2013</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">Gross Domestic Product</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">&nbsp;1.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">&nbsp;0.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">&nbsp;0.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">2.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">2.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.7</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">&nbsp; Inventory Effect</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-1.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-0.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-0.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-0.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">0.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">0.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">0.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">Final Sales</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">2.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.2 </td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">2.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">2.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">&nbsp; Foreign Trade Effect</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-0.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-0.1 </td>
 <td align="center" width="148">-0.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">-0.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">0.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">Domestic Final Sales</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">2.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">2.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">3.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">2.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="grey3">
 <td class="firstcol" colSpan="7" width="1630">Demand Components</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">Personal Consumption Expenditures</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">4.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">2.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">2.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">3.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">2.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">Business Fixed Investment</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-2.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-3.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-3.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-1.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">2.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">6.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">3.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">Residential Investment</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-6.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">7.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">11.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">6.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">11.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">3.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">11.9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">Government Spending</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">-0.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">&nbsp;1.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.9s</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">-0.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">-2.9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="grey3">
 <td class="firstcol" colSpan="7" width="1630">Chain-Type Price Index</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">GDP&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">2.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">Personal Consumption Expenditures</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">0.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">0.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="746">&nbsp;Less Food/Energy</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">2.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="147">1.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="148">1.5</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;
Chicago Purchasing Managers Index Recovers Sharply 
by <a href="http://haver.com/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;July 29, 2016
Chicago purchasing managers reported that their Business Barometer surged to
56.8 this month following a May decline to 49.3. The figure was at the highest
level since January 2015, and exceeded expectations for 50.4 in the Action
Economics Forecast Survey.
Haver Analytics constructs an ISM-Adjusted Index using the Chicago
numbers, comparable to the overall ISM index to be released tomorrow. Our figure
increased to 52.9, the highest level since October. During the last ten years,
there has been a 61% correlation between the adjusted Chicago Purchasing
Managers index and real GDP growth.
Increases in the component series were widespread. Most notable was a 14.4
point gain in the new orders index to 63.2, the highest level since October
2014. The order backlog measure also surged 12.0 points to the highest level
(59.7) since March 2011. The production and inventory indexes increased
moderately to 56.3 and 50.0, respectively.
The employment figure also declined 3.3 points to 45.0, the lowest level
since November 2009. During the last ten years, there has been an 80%
correlation between the employment figure and the m/m change in factory sector
employment. Supplier delivery speeds quickened, prompting a decline in the
index.
The prices paid reading eased to 55.7, leaving the Q2 average of 56.4 above
the Q1 mean of 43.3. An increased 25% (NSA) of respondents reported paying
higher prices while 10% paid less.
The MNI Chicago Report is produced by MNI/Deutsche Borse Group in partnership
with ISM-Chicago. The survey covers a sample of over 200 purchasing
professionals in the Chicago area with a monthly response rate of about 50%. The
ISM-Adjusted headline index is calculated by Haver Analytics using these data to
construct a figure with the ISM methodology. The figures can be found in Haver's
SURVEYS database. The Consensus expectations figure is available in AS1REPNA.
<table width="1782" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" width="984">Chicago Purchasing Managers Index (%, SA)</th>
 <th scope="col" width="113">Jul</th>
 <th scope="col" width="113">Jun</th>
 <th scope="col" width="113">May</th>
 <th scope="col" width="113">Jun '15</th>
 <th scope="col" width="114">2015</th>
 <th scope="col" width="114">2014</th>
 <th scope="col" width="114">2013</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">General Business Barometer</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">56.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">49.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">49.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">50.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">60.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">56.0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">ISM-Adjusted General Business Barometer</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">52.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">48.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">49.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">51.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">59.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">54.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp;&nbsp;Production</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">56.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">47.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">50.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">52.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">64.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">58.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp;&nbsp;New Orders</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">63.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">48.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">51.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">50.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">63.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">59.1</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp;&nbsp;Order Backlogs</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">59.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">47.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">42.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">44.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">54.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">48.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp;&nbsp;Inventories</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">50.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">37.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">47.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">52.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">55.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">45.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp;&nbsp;Employment</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">45.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">48.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">47.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">50.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">56.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">55.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp;&nbsp;Supplier Deliveries</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">50.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">57.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">50.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">52.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">56.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">52.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp;&nbsp;Prices Paid</td>
 <td align="center" width="113"></td>
 <td align="center" width="113">55.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">56.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="113">50.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">46.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">61.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="114">59.8</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;

</body>

</html>

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

Resilient US economy is pushing up longer-term inflation expectations and interest rates

Positive US economic data surprises leading to upward adjustment of interest rate expectations

Recent aggressive policy easing in China has given a massive boost to equity prices

FOMC expects much more easing now than in June

US is clear world leader in business capital spending on artificial intelligence

Blue Chip forecasters expect US to lead aggressive policy rate cuts over coming year—apart from Japan

Ratio of job openings to the number unemployed in the US now below pre-pandemic level

U.S. layoffs not showing as much cooling in labor markets as unemployment rate

While goods prices have moderated, service price inflation remains elevated and sticky

Since Jan 2023, BCEI US outlook has improved, worsened for Japan and the euro area

Persistent negative US economic surprises leading to big rate-cut expectations

Germany is Euro area weakling

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

Andrew Cates

**Energy and labour markets**
Chart 1 below highlights two key trends: the real consumer price of energy in the OECD economies (indexed to 1970) has shown significant volatility, with sharp spikes during periods of energy crises (e.g., 1970s oil shocks, 2008, and post-pandemic supply constraints) and declines following market adjustments or advances in energy production. Meanwhile, the US labour share of business output has experienced a steady decline since the 1980s, reflecting structural changes in the economy such as globalization, technological advances, a shift in bargaining power away from labour toward capital as well as higher real energy prices. These trends and the interplay between them will arguably form the basis of several policy choices that will be made (or already are being made) by a new US administration.

250123Z1.jpg

**Electricity prices**
Energy prices, their level and their volatility, arguably play a much bigger role in broader macroeconomic fluctuations than they are given credit for. Chart 2 below shows electricity prices (a 2-year average) across six major developed economies. It shows that the US has faced the cheapest electricity at around $44/MWh. The UK and Germany, in contrast, have faced the most expensive electricity at respectively $106/MWh and $94/MWh. This disparity reflects a mix of factors: European countries, particularly the UK and Germany, face elevated prices due to heavy reliance on natural gas imports, exacerbated by geopolitical tensions (e.g., reduced Russian supply), higher renewable energy integration costs, and carbon pricing mechanisms. The US, in contrast, enjoys lower electricity costs due to more abundant domestic energy resources, particularly natural gas, and less exposure to international energy markets. Against this backdrop it is hardly a surprise that the US economy has flourished (relative to other advanced economies) while the UK and Germany have floundered.

250123Z2.jpg

**The UK labour market**
This week’s labour market data additionally suggest that the UK will probably struggle to keep pace with the US economy in the period immediately ahead. The data specifically revealed that employment growth is slowing on all measures, and the PAYE measure of payrolls in particular (see chart 3 below). And while private sector pay growth has also slowed, the 6-month annualised rates of growth still stood at a relatively lofty 5.8% in December. Weaker employment growth will encourage the BoE to cut rates again before too long (probably in February) but weaker wage growth could also be necessary for a much looser policy stance to be enacted over the next few months.

250123Z3.jpg

**Household savings and labour market activity**
At a broader global level, a key risk to the economic outlook at present concerns restrictive monetary policy and its impact on labour market activity and household spending. Chart 4 below shows that household saving rates in the world’s major economies have – on the whole – been rebounding over the past two years. Simultaneously, the unemployment rate in advanced economies has begun to climb. These trends align with the tightening of monetary policy that’s been enacted in recent years and economic uncertainty. But if that combination persists, it could place a bigger brake on the world economy this year than many analysts are anticipating.

250123Z4.jpg

**China’s credit impulse**
Another big source of uncertainty, at present, concerns China. Chart 5 below compares the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index for emerging markets (EM) and Haver’s calculations for China’s credit impulse (the change in new credit as a percentage of GDP). The chart suggests that China's credit growth influences broader EM economic fluctuations. During periods of robust credit growth (e.g., 2020-2021), driven by stimulus measures, EM economies benefited from improved liquidity and demand from China. Conversely, periods of credit tightening (e.g., 2017 and 2023-2024) weighed on economic surprises, reflecting weaker support for growth. These dynamics underline China’s outsized role in shaping sentiment and economic conditions in emerging markets. That its credit impulse, moreover, remained negative in Q4 (of 2024) underscores how China might continue to exert downward pressure on the world economy in the period immediately ahead.

250123Z5.jpg

**South Korean trade**
Another source of uncertainty for the world economy, at present, is the optimism surrounding AI. While proponents highlight its transformative potential to boost productivity, efficiency, and innovation across industries, sceptics question the timeline for a meaningful economic impact. With that in mind it would be inappropriate to draw strong conclusions from chart 6 below but it is certainly of note that South Korea – which has been heavily reliant on AI-fuelled trade – saw a big slowdown in export growth in the first 20 days of January. Much of that slowdown, moreover, could be traced to a big drop in semiconductor trade.

250123Z6.jpg

Financial markets have enjoyed a notable lift in sentiment over recent days, driven by renewed optimism about the domestic economic policies of a new US administration. Investors have certainly been cheered by early signals of a pro-growth strategy, with the energy sector taking centre stage following a ceasefire between Israel and Gaza and the announcement of measures aimed at reducing US energy costs (see charts 1 and 2). Meanwhile, China’s stronger-than-expected growth figures last week and softer-than-expected inflation readings from both the US and the UK have fuelled gains across equity and bond markets, bolstering risk appetite in other markets. However, despite the prevailing optimism, several factors warrant caution. Chief among them is the global uncertainty that surrounds the policy choices of a new US administration. The policy choices of central banks will also be critical, particularly as labour market strength could keep inflation risks alive (charts 3 and 4). Questions also linger about China’s ability to sustain its growth momentum, especially as its property sector and consumer demand face ongoing challenges (chart 5). Finally, while artificial intelligence is increasingly seen as a driver of future growth and productivity, doubts persist over its near-term potential to meaningfully transform the world economy (chart 6). For now, investors appear content to ride the wave of positive sentiment, but vigilance over these risks will be critical as the economic landscape continues to evolve.

Charts of the Week: Trump Cards

250123A1.jpg

250123B1.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose to 223,000 in the third week of January from an unrevised 217,000 during the prior week. A 215,000 increase in initial claims had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Initial claims have risen from a 203,000 low in the first week of January. During the last four weeks, initial claims averaged 213,500, down from 226,750 four weeks earlier.

Continuing claims for jobless insurance increased 46,000 (7.8% y/y) to 1.899 million in the week ended January 11 from 1.853 million in the prior week. Ongoing claims have risen from a low of 1.834 million in the third week of December. The four week moving average of continuing jobless insurance claims eased to 1.866 million, down from a 1.888 million high in the third week of November.

The insured rate of unemployment was 1.2% for the fourth straight week. This level was increased from a 2022 low of 0.9% and compares to the rise in the overall unemployment rate to 4.1% from 3.4% over the same period.

Unemployment rates vary widely across states. The Labor Department reports that for the week ended January 4, the insured unemployment rate was highest in Rhode Island (3.22%), New Jersey (3.07%), Minnesota (2.73%), Washington (2.52%) and Massachusetts (2.41%). The insured unemployment rates were lowest in Florida (0.33%), Virginia (0.43%), Tennessee (0.58%) and Alabama (0.52%) and the Virgin Islands (0.67%). Rates in other notable states include California (2.32%), Pennsylvania (2.24%), New York (2.08%) and Texas (1.13%). These state rates are not seasonally adjusted.

Data on weekly unemployment claims are from the Department of Labor itself, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They begin in 1967 and are contained in Haver’s **WEEKLY** database and summarized monthly in **USECON**. Data for individual states are in **REGIONW** back to December 1986. The expectations figure is from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250123C1.jpg

250123D1.jpg

- Initial jobless claims increase to highest level in six weeks. 
- Continuing claims approach four-week high.
- The insured unemployment rate remains low.

U.S. Unemployment Insurance Claims Rise in Latest Week

250123E.jpg

EU order trends ‘improved’ slightly in January as the net diffusion reading rose from -40 to -34. Still, that improvement leaves orders below their 3-month, 6-month, or 12-month averages. The queue standard of January orders is in the lower 14th percentile of its historic queue of data. Obviously, it remains a historically weak reading. The order series is volatile as the chart shows. But it is still in a clear downtrend even with the uptick this month.

Export orders have approximately the same profile as for orders overall. But export orders weaken slightly in January compared to December. Export orders overall have a slightly weaker queue standing than total orders at a 13.4 percentile level.

The diffusion readings for stocks of finished goods weakened in January but even with its weaker January assessment, stocks have a firm-to-strong 72.5 percentile standing.

Looking ahead, the outlook for output volume over the next three months improved sharply from its stunning weak reading of -31 in December. However, the rise to -19 in January represents only a 4.8 percentile standing.

Unfortunately, average output prices for three months ahead has reading of +27 in January, up from +23 in December and +11 in November; the backtracking in prices expected, has brought the expectation level for the current reading to a high, 90-percentile standing. These rising inflation expectations are going to be a real problem for the Bank of England.

IP data lag the CBI survey responses. The manufacturing IP growth rate, year-on-year, has a 17.4 percentile standing as of its most recent observation in November 2024. That is also very weak. The CBI results are not giving a different message from the industrial production data, but they are timelier.

The ramp up in inflation expectation is not good new with CPI-H inflation at 3.5% year-over-year and with the core pace at 4.2%. Core inflation, sequentially, is looking stable around the 4.2% pace; for the headline, the pace has accelerated from 3.5% over 12 months to a pace of 5.4% over three months. These results, coupled with the rise in CBI expectations, are not good news for the U.K. or for the BOE.

250123.jpg

United Kingdom

U.K. Order Trends Are Still Eroding

250122F11.jpg

250122G11.jpg

The Conference Board's Leading Economic Index fell 0.1% (-3.0% y/y) during December, following a 0.4% November rise, revised from 0.3%, and a 0.3% October decline, revised from -0.4%. A 0.1% easing in the December index had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The Leading Index is comprised of 10 components which tend to precede changes in overall economic activity. The index has been trending lower since January 2022, contrasting with positive real economic growth.

During December, component changes amongst the leaders diverged. Series which contributed positively to the index change included a longer factory sector workweek, improved factory orders for consumer goods, an increase in orders for nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft, higher stock prices in the S&P 500 index and the leading credit index. Series contributing negatively were higher initial unemployment insurance claims, a lower ISM new orders index, falling building permits, the interest rate yield curve and consumer expectations for business/economic conditions.

The Coincident Economic Index rose 0.4% last month (1.6% y/y) after rising 0.2% in November and holding steady in October. Movement amongst the four components was uniformly positive in December. Industrial production jumped by the largest amount since February, real personal income strengthened steadily, payroll employment improved on prior two months’ increases while real manufacturing & trade sales rose steadily.

The Lagging Economic Index improved 0.1% last month (0.3% y/y) after rising 0.2% in November and remaining unchanged in October. The 6-month change in the services CPI, the 6-month change in unit labor costs and the ratio of consumer installment credit-to-personal income contributed positively to the index change. The business inventory-to-sales ratio contributed nothing to the index change. The duration of unemployment, the prime interest rate charged by banks and commercial & industrial loans outstanding contributed negatively to the index change.

The ratio of coincident-to-lagging indicators, considered another leading indicator, rose 0.3% last month after holding steady for two straight months.

The Conference Board figures are available in Haver's **BCI** database; the components are available there, and most are also in **USECON**. The expectations are in the **AS1REPNA** database. Visit the Conference Board's [website](https://www.conference-board.org/us/) for coverage of leading indicator series from around the world.

250122H11.jpg

250122I11.jpg

- Movement in leading indicator components remains mixed.
- Coincident indicators strengthen.
- Lagging indicators edge higher.

U.S. Leading Indicators Ease

250122C2.jpg

250122D2.jpg

Retail gasoline prices for all grades rose to an average $3.23 per gallon (1.5% y/y) in the week ending January 20 from $3.16 in the prior week. The all-time high of $5.11 was in the week ending June 13, 2022. The retail price for on-highway diesel fuel jumped	to $3.72 per gallon (-3.2% y/y) in the week of January 20, the highest level since early-August, from $3.60 in the prior week. The latest price was down from a high of $4.63 in the week ending September 18, 2023 and a peak of $5.81 in the week ending June 20, 2022.

The price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil rose to $78.58 per barrel (7.3% y/y) in the week ending January 17 after increasing to $74.32 in the prior week. It was the highest level in five months but still below the peak of $120.46 in the week of June 10, 2022. Yesterday, the price was $75.89 per barrel. The price of European Brent crude oil rose to $82.53 per barrel (3.0% y/y) in the week of January 17 from $78.14 in the prior week. Prices remained below a peak of $127.40 in the week of June 10, 2022. Yesterday’s price was $80.57 per barrel.

Natural gas prices surged to an average $5.47/mmbtu (87.3% y/y) in the week of January 17 from $3.93 in the prior week, posting the highest level since a high of $5.11/mmbtu in the week of January 12, 2024. Prices reached a low of $1.40/mmbtu in the week of March 15, 2024 and a peak of $9.56 in the week of August 26, 2022. Yesterday, the price was $4.40/mmbtu.

Gasoline demand rose 0.8% y/y in the four weeks ending January 10 on top of a 1.2% y/y gain in the prior four weeks. Demand for all petroleum products increased 1.1% y/y in the four weeks ending January 10. Crude oil input to refineries increased 1.2% y/y in the four weeks ending January 10 after a 1.5% y/y rise in the prior four weeks.

Gasoline inventories fell 1.8% y/y in the week ending January 10 after a 3.0% y/y decline in the prior week. In contrast, residual fuel oil inventories fell 12.1% y/y in the week of January 10 following a 5.7% y/y decrease in the prior week. Crude oil inventories rose 2.7% y/y in the week of January 10, the same as during the prior week.

Measured in days’ supply, gasoline inventories rose to 28.7 days in the week of January 10 from 27.5 days in the prior	 week, registering the highest reading since the end of February 2024. The recent low was 22.9 days in the week of November 8. The supply of crude oil was little changed at 24.6 days in the week of January 10, still near the lowest number since a low of 24.8 days in the week of September 20, 2024 and below a high of 31.9 days in the week of March 3, 2023.

These data are reported by the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy. The price and supply/demand data can be found in Haver’s **WEEKLY** & **USENERGY** database.

- Gasoline prices reach three-month high.
- Crude oil costs surge.
- Natural gas prices strengthen to two-year high.

Economy in Brief: July 2016

Jump to:

U.S. GDP Growth Disappoints as Inventories Are Reduced

Euro Area Unemployment Rates Steady. Down-trend Remains in Place

Chicago Purchasing Managers Index Eases

U.S. Employment Cost Index Shows Steady Gain

Euro Area Unemployment Rates Steady. Down-trend Remains in Place

U.S. GDP Growth Disappoints as Inventories Are Reduced

U.S. GDP Growth Disappoints as Inventories Are Reduced

U.S. GDP Growth Disappoints as Inventories Are Reduced