Economy in Brief: 2025

Money growth trends and the major money center economies are not showing any clear indication toward economic weakness despite widespread pessimism on the part of economists and market prognosticators.

Money growth is accelerating as its growth speeds up over one year compared to its growth over either two or three years in the EMU, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Credit growth in the EMU also speeds up on this sequence- not usually a slowdown signal. The lone exception here is Japan where its fight against deflation is finally won and morphed into an inflation problem that the Bank of Japan is fighting with its usual gradualism. Japan’s money supply growth slows over two years compared to three years and over one year compared to two years. However, back in Europe, credit growth in the EMU is showing acceleration on this timeline. Japan is the only ‘slowdown signal.’

We can also peruse the growth rates for real money balances. The EMU, the U.S., and the U.K. show that ‘real money balance’ growth picks up for two-years compared to three-years and accelerates again over one year compared to two-years. Acceleration is in train as real money balance growth transitions from a shrinking profile to positive growth rates in these three countries. Japan is an exception here as it still logs all negative growth rates and these do get progressively weaker (-1.2% over three years to -1.5% over two years to -2.8% over one year).

Shorter terms trends (for the skeptical) Within the one-year horizons (12-month to 6-month to 3-month), the annualized nominal growth rate in the EMU weaken from 3.4% over 12 months to 2.0% over three months, but real balance growth is nearly unchanged at 1.1% over 12 months compared to 0.9% over three months annualized. Real credit on these time sequences accelerates in the EMU. U.S. real M2 growth generally accelerates from 12-months to 3-months. The same is true for the U.K. but not as steadily. Japan’s progress shows growth rate declines but not getting progressively weaker.

Through all of this, nominal oil prices are steadily falling. While the pace of decline lets up over two years, the 3-year and 12-month growth rates are nearly identical.

This week, we focus on the immediate impacts of the recent US-China trade escalation. As we discuss below these are already being exhibited in the data. While still within historical ranges, high-frequency estimates of US and China cargo trade volumes have begun to deteriorate (chart 1). In tandem with these volume declines, freight rates on certain Shanghai-to-US routes have fallen (chart 2), suggesting reduced shipping demand. This has been further corroborated by widespread reports of large-scale shipment cancellations from China to the US. A potentially clearer signal comes from South Korea’s trade data for the first 20 days of the month, often viewed as a bellwether for global trade. The figures point to a notable slump compared with a year ago (chart 3). More complete April data are expected later this week.

Turning to broader developments in China, we observe that the dominant shifts in the country's financial balances over the past decade have occurred between the general government and the private sector. In contrast, China’s foreign sector balance—essentially its current account—has remained relatively stable (chart 4). As we further discuss financial balances and the underlying causes of the US’ persistent current account deficit (chart 5) have been a recurring topic in recent conversations with clients in Asia. It is argued that the US dollar’s role as a global reserve currency effectively necessitates the US running a current account deficit. Consequently, attempts to narrow the deficit through tariffs may address symptoms rather than root causes. Finally, we revisit the China Plus One strategy adopted by firms since the initial US-China trade fallout in 2018. This approach has contributed to ballooning trade deficits between the US and some of its other major trading partners (chart 6), prompting renewed scrutiny under President Trump’s early “Liberation Day” trade actions.

US and China cargo trade Financial markets have recently found some reason for relief, as both the US and China appear to be lowering the temperature on further trade tariff actions. Recent messaging has leaned more toward a de-escalation of trade tensions, though concrete details remain sparse, and it is unclear how or when formal negotiations might begin. That said, the substantial and mutually imposed tariffs between the US and China remain firmly in place, and a significant rollback does not seem likely in the near term. In the meantime the economic impact of these tariffs is beginning to surface in the data, as shown in charts 1 to 3. Chart 1, based on IMF estimates, shows a sharp decline in daily activity at several key ports involved in US-China trade. However, while the drop is notable, port activity still remains within historical ranges, so a more fundamental shift is not yet evident.

Retailing and Wholesaling continue to show wear and tear The United Kingdom’s distributive trades survey has four parts. There's a survey of retailing and a separate survey of wholesaling. Then for each one of these surveys, there's a module that addresses current conditions and another one that addresses expected conditions.

Current Conditions vs. Expectations for the distributive trades In this month's report, the current conditions assessments improved in retailing but were mixed for wholesaling. Expectations in retailing and wholesaling were also mixed as to month-to-month changes, but the levels of the responses remained quite weak.

The Specifics Current Retailing- Retail sales compared to a year ago improved sharply to a -8 reading in April compared to a draconian -41 in March. Orders compared to a year ago improved at a reading of -24 in April from -38 in March. Sales for the time of year improved to -31 from -36. Sales compared to a year ago have a below median 29.2 percentile standing, while orders compared to a year ago have a 16.9 percentile standing and sales evaluated for the time of year have a 12.3 percentile standing. In each case, the reading from April is below its median reading of the last 24 years. These readings as a collection are weak readings.

Expected Retailing- The expected results for retailing in the survey show mixed results. The reading for sales compared to a year ago at -33 in May is slightly weaker than -30 in April. Orders compared to a year ago improved to -29 in May from -41 in April. But the survey shows a deterioration in sales for the time of year at -38 in May compared to -35 in April. The rankings for these readings range between the 10.5 percentile and 4.2 percentile, range marking them as all extremely weak readings in their historic queue of standings.

Current Wholesaling- Wholesaling also generally shows slippage in April. Sales compared to a year ago fell to -33 in April from in -29 in March, while orders compared to a year ago improved to -32 from March’s -38. Sales for the time of year, which post a reading of -31 in April compared to a reading of -20 in March, demonstrated slippage again. The rankings for these readings range from 4.2 to 9.2 in percentile standing terms.

Expected Wholesaling- Turning to expectations, sales compared to a year ago nudged lower to -26 in May from -25 in April. Orders compared to a year ago improved nicely to a reading of -28 in May compared to -38 in April; expected sales for the time of year slipped to -28 from April’s -27. Several of these are small stumbles month-to-month. But these readings range from a low percentile standing of 7.7 percentile to a high standing at a 12.6 percentile – all weak metrics.