Robert Brusca

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080402i.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
PPI trends are decidedly poor in the Euro Area. The core PPI
excluding energy is on the rise with its three-month pace at 5.1% up
from 3.9% over six months and from 3.6% over 12 months. This sort of
acceleration in the ex-energy rate is going to be disquieting. This
sort of pressure is the reason that the ECB remains vigilant on
inflation and that a German Banker group, the German Bankers
Association (BDB), registered concerns today about strong inflation
pressures and elevated wage deals. The BDB is concerned about a
wage-price spiral. ECB rhetoric is usually couched in terms of avoiding
&#8216;second round effects&#8217; and anchoring inflation expectations.
However you express these concerns, the PPI embodies the risk
that the ECB and the German bankers fear.
So far, however, it is the PPI that is bad off and the HICP
that is relatively better behaved. HICP inflation rates are more
subdued. But there will be concerns that this PPI inflation pressure
and this ex-energy trend can be passed on. Germany, France, Italy and
the UK (and EU country) each embodies the trend of an accelerating
ex-energy price spurt. That by itself is troubling. At 3.6% the yr/yr
rate for PPI inflation in the EMU is already ahead of the allowable
ceiling (2%) for the HICP. Italy&#8217;s
12-mo ex-energy PPI pace is 5.7%, France&#8217;s is 3.1%, and Germany&#8217;s is
2.7%. This is a lot of congestion above the ceiling rate for the HICP.
The February PPI is not a welcome report in the Euro Area, nor
will the BOE like it..

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="7" scope="col"> Euro
Area and UK PPI Trends</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="2">M/M</td>
<td colspan="4">Saar</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Euro Area 15</td>
<td>Feb-08</td>
<td>Jan-08</td>
<td>3-Mo</td>
<td>6-MO</td>
<td>Yr/Yr</td>
<td>Y/Y Yr Ago</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total ex Construction</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Excl Energy</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capital Goods</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Goods</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate &amp;Capital
Goods</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Energy</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>12.0%</td>
<td>19.9%</td>
<td>11.7%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">MFG</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Ex Energy</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Ex Energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Ex Energy</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">UK</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>11.8%</td>
<td>19.2%</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Ex Energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>6.8%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">Euro Area
Harmonized PPI excluding
Construction.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">The EA 15
countries are Austria,
Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

PPI trends are decidedly poor in the Euro Area. The core PPI excluding energy is on the rise with its three-month pace at 5.1% up from 3.9% over six months and from 3.6% over 12 months. This sort of acceleration in the ex-energy rate [...]

EMU PPI Trends Press Higher…

Tom Moeller

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080402f.jpg" width="353">
Factory inventories rose 0.5% in February, down from the 1.3% surge during January. Despite the lesser rate of monthly gain, the three month growth in inventories jumped to 11.3% (AR) which was near its strongest since early 2005.
Strength within the transportation sector accounts for some of that lift. The aircraft industry is having an outsized effect and inventories there rose 1.4% in February following a 3.7% January surge, and three month growth is at 39.2% (AR). But still showing strength were inventories excluding the transportation sector. They rose 0.4% in February and three month growth rose to 9.5% after no gain early last year. Inventories of machinery, computers &amp; electronics and electrical equipment &amp; appliances are growing more rapidly. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080402g.jpg" width="353">
With a 2.1% decline, factory shipments took back all of January&#39;s 1.1% jump. Excluding the transportation sector the numbers were as bleak and shipments fell 1.8% after just a 0.8% January increase.Three month growth turned to a negative 4.8% which was the weakest since late 2006. It reflected declines in textiles, apparel, computers and furniture.
Total factory orders fell another 1.3% during February. Less the transportation sector altogether orders fell a larger 1.8%. Durable orders overall fell 1.1% and that was slightly less than the 1.7% decline reported in the advance report. Nevertheless, the three month rate of change fell to -0.4% and less transportation the three month change in orders was a negative 6.4%. Nondurable orders (which equal shipments) fell at a 7.4% rate.
Overall unfilled orders rose 0.9% in February and the three month rate of increase continued very strong at 18.2%. Shipments of civilian aircraft &amp; parts couldn&#39;t keep pace with orders, so unfilled orders rose. Excluding the transportation sector altogether unfilled orders fell 0.1% m/m and the three month average growth rate fell to a still firm 8.4% (AR).

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED01/@ED0101/@ED01016/@ED01016.HTM">Factory Survey</a> (NAICS, %)</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Inventories</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>6.4</td>
<td>8.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding Transportation</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>4.5</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>8.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">New Orders</td>
<td>-1.3</td>
<td>-2.3</td>
<td>6.0</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>5.1</td>
<td>11.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding Transportation</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>5.4</td>
<td>11.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Shipments</td>
<td>-2.1</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>10.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding Transportation</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>11.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unfilled Orders</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>18.6</td>
<td>18.1</td>
<td>20.0</td>
<td>15.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding Transportation</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>8.5</td>
<td>9.1</td>
<td>14.1</td>
<td>8.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Factory inventories rose 0.5% in February, down from the 1.3% surge during January. Despite the lesser rate of monthly gain, the three month growth in inventories jumped to 11.3% (AR) which was near its strongest since early 2005. [...]

U.S. Factory Inventory Rise Continued Firm

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080402h.jpg" width="353">
Job cut announcements in March fell to 53,579 from 72,091 during the prior month, according to the Challenger, Grey &amp; Christmas survey. The three month average of announcements, however, has been stable since early last year.
The three month average of job cut announcements is up sharply in the aerospace, services, government, industrial goods, pharmaceutical, retail and transportation industries but has been stable most elsewhere.
During the last ten years there has been a 76% (inverse) correlation between the three month moving average of announced job cuts and the three month change payroll employment.
Job cut announcements differ from layoffs. Many are achieved through attrition, early retirement or just never occur.
Challenger also reported that announced hiring plans were down slightly m/m but that the three month average was little changed.
Maps and data that illustrate subprime and alt-A mortgage loan conditions across the United States, from the Federal Reserve, can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/other/20080401a.htm"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S3/@S301/@S301.HTM">Challenger, Gray &amp; Christmas</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Announced Job Cuts</td>
<td>53,579</td>
<td>72,091</td>
<td>9.4%</td>
<td>768,264</td>
<td>839,822</td>
<td>1,072,054</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Job cut announcements in March fell to 53,579 from 72,091 during the prior month, according to the Challenger, Grey & Christmas survey. The three month average of announcements, however, has been stable since early last year. The [...]

Challenger Layoffs Down Last Month

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080402d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The ADP National Employment Report, from the payroll
processor, reported that private nonfarm payrolls rose 8,000 last month
after a slightly revised decline of 18,000 during February.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics employment figure for
February will be published Friday.Last
month, the 18,000 decline in ADP's measure of private nonfarm payrolls
was accompanied by a 101,000 worker decline in private sector payrolls
as reported by BLS.
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.
The ADP sub-index for large payrolls fell 52,000 (-0.8% y/y)
after a 32,000 worker decline during February.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080402e.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
A 55,000 worker increase (1.3% y/y) in small sized payrolls
during March offset that decline and followed a 16,000 worker increase
the prior month.
Growth in medium sized payrolls of 5,000 (0.8% y/y) followed a
2,000 worker February decline.
Employment in the goods producing industries fell 77,000
(-2.0% y/y) and services payrolls rose 85,000 (1.4% y/y).
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.
The ADP National Employment Report data is maintained in
Haver's USECON database; historical data
go back to December 2000. The figures in this report cover only private
sector jobs and exclude employment in the public sector, which rose an
average 11,083 during the last twelve months.
The full ADP National Employment Report can be found <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/FINAL_Report_MAR_08.pdf">here</a>,
and the ADP methodology is explained <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/ADPNERMethodology.pdf">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EB/@EB25/@EB25.HTM">LAXEPA@USECON</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">February</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Nonfarm Private Payroll
Employment (m/m Chg.)</td>
<td>8,000</td>
<td>-18,000</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The ADP National Employment Report, from the payroll processor, reported that private nonfarm payrolls rose 8,000 last month after a slightly revised decline of 18,000 during February. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics employment [...]

ADP Report: March Private Sector Payrolls Rose Slightly

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080402c.jpg" width="353">
U.S. sales of light vehicles during March at a 15.11M unit annual selling rate were at the lowest level since October 2005 according to the Autodata Corporation. The 1.7% m/m decline from 15.38M followed an increase of just 0.3% during February and a 5.4% January plunge.
Sales of domestically made light vehicles fell 4.7% m/m. Sales of U.S. made cars fell 1.7%, the same as during February but higher gasoline prices contributed to a 7.0% decline in sales of domestically made light trucks. They&#39;re now at the lowest level in ten years.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080402b.jpg" width="353">
Sales of imported light vehicles rose another 7.4% m/m to 4.09M units after a 5.4% February increase. The latest was near the record level. Sales of imported autos surged 11.5% following February&#39;s 6.9% m/m advance. Sales of imported light trucks ticked up 0.5% m/m after a 2.9% February gain.
Import&#39;s share of the U.S. light vehicle market rose to a record 27.0%. Imported vehicles are those produced outside the U.S. and does not include vehicles with the nameplate of a foreign manufacturer produced within the U.S.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080402a.jpg" width="353">
Retail gasoline prices last week again moved up another three cents to $3.29 per gallon, according to the US Department of Energy survey.Pushing the price up was an increase in the price for spot WTI crude oil prices to $104.23 per barrel.
Today&#39;s testimony by Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke on the Economic Outlook can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20080402a.htm"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED09/@ED0901/@ED0901.HTM">Light Vehicle Sales (SAAR, Mil. Units)</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;February</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>15.11</td>
<td>15.38</td>
<td>-7.2%</td>
<td>16.18</td>
<td>16.55</td>
<td>16.96</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Autos</td>
<td>7.51</td>
<td>7.31</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>7.58</td>
<td>7.77</td>
<td>7.65</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Domestic</td>
<td>4.84</td>
<td>4.92</td>
<td>-2.7%</td>
<td>5.07</td>
<td>5.31</td>
<td>5.40</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Imported</td>
<td>2.67</td>
<td>2.39</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.51</td>
<td>2.45</td>
<td>2.25</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Light Trucks</td>
<td>7.61</td>
<td>8.06</td>
<td>-12.8%</td>
<td>8.60</td>
<td>8.78</td>
<td>9.32</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Domestic</td>
<td>6.19</td>
<td>6.65</td>
<td>-14.1%</td>
<td>7.12</td>
<td>7.42</td>
<td>8.12</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Imported</td>
<td>1.42</td>
<td>1.41</td>
<td>-6.6%</td>
<td>1.48</td>
<td>1.37</td>
<td>1.20</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W4/@W4.HTM">Weekly Prices</a></th>
<th scope="col">03/31/08</th>
<th scope="col">03/24/08</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retail Gasoline ($ per Gallon)</td>
<td>3.29</td>
<td>3.26</td>
<td>21.5%</td>
<td>2.80</td>
<td>2.57</td>
<td>2.27</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Light Sweet Crude Oil, WTI&nbsp; ($ per bbl.)</td>
<td>104.23</td>
<td>106.02</td>
<td>61.9%</td>
<td>94.00</td>
<td>61.11</td>
<td>58.16</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

U.S. sales of light vehicles during March at a 15.11M unit annual selling rate were at the lowest level since October 2005 according to the Autodata Corporation. The 1.7% m/m decline from 15.38M followed an increase of just 0.3% [...]

U.S. Vehicle Sales Lowest Since 2005, Gasoline Price Up

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080401j.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
While German unemployment fell more than expected in March
there has been no relief to German retailers or by association
consumers. The growth rate series in the chart is remarkable for its
tranquility. German real retail sales are simply flat after some
turbulence early in 2007 stemming from the VAT tax that shifted sales
into 2007 then sucked them out of 2008. Sales
are settling down into a very narrow growth band in late 2007 and 2008.
Even though Germany continues to post acceptable rates of growth, the
consumer has long been forecast as a force to join in to extend the
expansion but he simply has not. Indeed, real retail sales ex-auto
sales (see table, at the bottom) fell sharply in February. Sales by
this measure at the two-month mark in the new quarter are declining at
a 1.3% annual rate. Real ex auto sales would have to rise by 1.6% in
March to &#8216;elevate&#8217; the quarter&#8217;s sales pace to zero.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr><th colspan="9" scope="col">German Real and Nominal Retail Sales </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Nominal</td>
<td>Feb-08</td>
<td>Jan-08</td>
<td>Dec-07</td>
<td>3-MO</td>
<td>6-MO</td>
<td>12-MO</td>
<td>YrAGo</td>
<td>QTR, SAAR</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retaill Ex auto</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Motor Vehicle and Parts</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>-4.7%</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Food, Beverages &amp;
Tobacco</td>
<td>-2.2%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>-2.3%</td>
<td>-9.1%</td>
<td>-4.5%</td>
<td>-3.9%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>-5.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Clothing footwear</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>21.6%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>16.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Real</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retail Ex auto</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-3.2%</td>
<td>-5.0%</td>
<td>-3.2%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

While German unemployment fell more than expected in March there has been no relief to German retailers or by association consumers. The growth rate series in the chart is remarkable for its tranquility. German real retail sales are [...]

European Economic Data Hits Blow Hot and Cold: This Time Cold: German Retail Sales

Louise Curley

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080401g.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312"><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080401h.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312">
The Bank of Japan's Tankan Survey released today shows growing
concerns among large manufacturers and non manufacturers, as can be
seen in the first and second charts. The excess of optimists over
pessimists among large manufacturers appraising current conditions
declined to 11% from 19% in December. A slightly smaller decline was
registered for non manufacturers--12% from 16%. In looking to the
second quarter, the excess of optimists over pessimists among large
manufacturers dropped to 7%. For non manufacturers, the excess of
optimists dropped to 13%. One of the factors influencing the
manufacturers, in particular, has been the steep rise in the yen over
the past nine months, can be seen in the third chart.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080401i.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="312">
Among the most closely watched items in the Tankan survey are
the forecasts of capital spending.In the current survey, manufacturers
plan to increase capital spending in the current fiscal year ending
last month, March, 2008 by 9.5% and non manufacturers by 5.2%. For next
fiscal year ending March 2009, however, both large manufacturers and
non manufacturers are planning to cut capital spending, the
manufacturers by 3.3% and the non manufacturers by 0.6%, as can be seen
in the fourth and fifth charts.
Much more detail from the Tankan can be found in the Haver
Database, JAPAN. Data are available for medium and
small enterprises and for specific industries as well as sales and
profit expectations.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080401j.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312"><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080401k.jpg" border="0" height="265" width="312">

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">JAPAN:&nbsp;
TANKAN SURVEY&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 08</th>
<th scope="col">Q1 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol">Actual
Business Conditions
(% balance)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Large
Manufacturing Co. &nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td>11</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>18</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Large Non
manufacturing Co.&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td>12</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol">Forecast
of Business
Conditions Next Quarter ( % balance)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Large
Manufacturing Co. &nbsp;</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Large Non
manufacturing Co.&nbsp;</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="9">&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Capital
Spending % Change</td>
<td>&nbsp;Fiscal '07</td>
<td>Fiscal '08</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Large
Manufacturing Co.</td>
<td>9.5</td>
<td>-3.3</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Large Non
manufacturing Co.&nbsp;</td>
<td>5.2</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The Bank of Japan's Tankan Survey released today shows growing concerns among large manufacturers and non manufacturers, as can be seen in the first and second charts. The excess of optimists over pessimists among large manufacturers [...]

Japan: TANKAN Results Show Growing Concerns Among Business

Next year's inflation forecasts are on the rise and above target

Disrupted global supply chains placing upward pressure on US goods prices

Construction of data centers has overtaken transportation construction in US

Elevated energy prices putting intense upward pressure on input prices around the globe

US is big leader in global surge in private AI investment

Larger-than-usual income tax refunds this year are supporting consumer spending

Sharply rising share of AI-related jobs

Inflationary impact of surge in oil prices larger in Europe than in the US

Futures market thinks the price of oil will recede significantly over the next six months

Recent pickup in US defense orders could help support overall growth ahead

Cost of transporting crude oil has soared to series high

Market-based inflation expectations have not yet reflected recent surge in oil prices

Global equity markets are fearing a major economic disruption from soaring oil prices

Is recent drop in sentiment signaling softer growth ahead?

With the Iran conflict, geopolitical risk has soared to alarming levels

Soaring AI-related investment in US underpinning strong contribution of business spending to overall growth

AI-related outperformance of IP in Advanced Asia ex Japan

Resilient US economy pushing up Blue Chip 2026 outlook

US and China big leaders in adoption of AI models

Robust US demand for advanced technology products

China's export growth rotating away from the US

More pronounced upward revisions in countries more exposed to AI investment

Stable job openings and hiring rates point to cautious hiring

Global freight costs are on the rise while supply chain pressures are contained

Accelerating positive economic surprises in the G10 are boosting the global economy

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

Service Health

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

Featured Data Additions

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Andrew Cates

**US Outperformance Holds; Europe and China Continue to Disappoint**
One of the most persistent features of the global macro landscape in 2026 has been the widening divergence between growth outcomes in the United States and those in Europe and China. Citigroup’s global growth surprise indices—which measure the gap between actual economic releases and consensus expectations—capture this divergence with unusual clarity. US data have continued to surprise on the upside, supported by resilient consumer spending, a stronger-than-expected labour market and the ongoing AI-driven capital spending boom. The picture elsewhere is less encouraging. Growth surprises have turned negative across the euro area, reflecting the cumulative toll of elevated energy costs, weak industrial activity and subdued business confidence. And China's growth surprise index has also fallen sharply in recent weeks, with weaker-than-expected retail sales and fixed asset investment data for May this week reinforcing concerns that domestic demand remains fragile and that policy support is yet to gain meaningful traction.

260618Z1.jpg

**The Oil Risk Premium in the UK Has Been Fading**
One of the more notable features of UK markets this year has been the close relationship between oil prices and two-year gilt yields. The link is not mechanical, but in an economy heavily exposed to imported energy, swings in oil prices can materially alter the inflation outlook and, by extension, expectations for Bank of England policy. That relationship was on display again this week. A softer-than-expected UK CPI reading for May—helped in part by easing energy price pressures—led investors to scale back expectations that inflation would remain persistently above target, pushing two-year gilt yields to their lowest level in six weeks. The question now is whether this marks the start of a more sustained easing in inflation pressures or merely a temporary reprieve. Much will depend on whether the recent decline in oil prices following the US-Iran ceasefire agreement proves durable.

260618Z2.jpg

**The AI Investment Boom Is Rewriting the Rule Book for the Chip Industry**
If the divergence in global growth surprises noted above tells a story of a world economy under strain, the semiconductor sales data tell a very different one — of a technology-driven investment cycle that is accelerating almost regardless of the broader macro environment. Global semiconductor sales have surged to record levels over the past twelve months, driven primarily by insatiable demand for the chips that underpin AI infrastructure: graphics processing units, high-bandwidth memory, and advanced logic chips. Data centre capital expenditure from the hyperscalers continues to exceed even the most optimistic forecasts from a year ago, and the investment pipeline shows no sign of moderating. The gains are concentrated in AI-adjacent products; legacy chips for consumer electronics and industrial applications remain relatively soft.

260618Z3.jpg

**Copper Holds Firm As Oil Retreats**
The commodity markets are telling two quite different stories this week, and the contrast is instructive. Oil has moved sharply lower on the US-Iran MoU news as investors trim the conflict risk premium that has been embedded in energy markets since March — a welcome development for inflation and central bank optionality alike. But the three commodities shown in this chart tell a different story. Copper, one of the most reliable proxies for global electricity infrastructure investment, remains near multi-year highs, reflecting the extraordinary volume of data centre construction, grid expansion and electrification spending flowing through the global economy. Aluminium — energy-intensive to produce and increasingly in demand for the structural components of both data centres and electric vehicles — has, until quite recently, held its ground. Lithium hydroxide, the battery-grade refining product that sits at the heart of the energy storage supply chain, has seen some cyclical softness but remains structurally underpinned by the scale of demand being projected for grid-scale storage and electric mobility over the next decade.

260618Z4.jpg

**Is Energy Availability a Binding Constraint on Growth?**
This next chart is a scatter plot that maps electricity generation per capita against GDP growth per capita across a broad sample of countries over the past five years. The positive relationship is striking. Economies with higher electricity generation per capita, including the United States, have generally delivered stronger GDP growth, while those with more constrained electricity systems have tended to lag. The obvious objection is reverse causality: richer economies generate more electricity because they have more to power. That is partly true. But the broader evidence is difficult to dismiss. The US shale revolution delivered an abundance of cheap energy that supported a sustained period of industrial outperformance relative to many advanced economies. Mainstream commentary often attributed this advantage to factors such as labour market flexibility or technological innovation, but energy costs were arguably at least as important.

260618Z5.jpg

**Corporate America Is Investing from a Position of Unusual Financial Strength**
The surge in US corporate investment—particularly in AI infrastructure, data centres and semiconductors—has inevitably drawn comparisons with the late-1990s dot-com boom. Yet the financial balance data suggest an important difference. During the dot-com era, US non-financial corporates moved into a financial deficit approaching 4% of GDP, relying heavily on external financing to fund investment. Today, despite another ambitious investment cycle, the sector remains in surplus, currently around 1.8% of GDP. Corporate America is investing aggressively, but it is still generating more cash than it is spending. The boom is being financed largely through profits rather than debt. Risks remain—not least the growing fiscal burden on the federal government—but the balance-sheet fragilities that turned previous investment booms into systemic crises appear far less pronounced. If a major constraint emerges in the years ahead, it may be energy and resources rather than leverage.

260618Z6.jpg

The signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran earlier this week has offered financial markets their most significant moment of geopolitical relief since the Middle East conflict escalated in early March. Oil prices fell sharply on the news, short-dated bond yields moved lower across several major economies, and risk assets recovered ground. But relief, as investors have learnt repeatedly over the past three months, is arguably not the same as resolution. The MoU sets a framework for negotiations rather than a final settlement, and the history of US-Iran diplomacy is not one that encourages complacency. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve — concluding its June meeting yesterday under new chair Kevin Warsh — held rates steady but delivered a distinctly hawkish dot plot that shifted the median year-end projection from a cut to a hike, a reminder that the easing cycle the market had been pricing is no longer the base case. Against this backdrop, this week's charts take stock of where the global economy presently stands — and what the underlying data, beneath the geopolitical noise, are telling us. The picture that emerges is one of divergence. The United States continues to outperform consensus growth expectations while Europe and China disappoint (chart 1). UK short-dated yields have tracked oil prices with unusual consistency this year, and today's softer-than-expected CPI print for May — arriving just as the MoU has knocked crude lower — potentially changes the policy calculus for the Bank of England (chart 2). Global semiconductor sales, meanwhile, are storming ahead regardless of the geopolitical noise, powered by AI infrastructure spending that shows no sign of fatigue (chart 3). A cross-section of commodity prices tells two stories simultaneously: the geopolitical risk premium is draining out of oil, but the metals and materials the AI economy actually needs — copper, uranium, critical minerals — are holding firm (chart 4). Meanwhile a cross-country scatter of electricity generation and GDP growth over the past five years raises a question that deserves more attention than it typically gets: is energy availability a constraint on growth, or merely a consequence of it? The evidence, we would argue, points firmly in one direction (chart 5). And finally, for all the comparisons being drawn between the current investment boom and the late 1990s, the financial balance of the US corporate sector tells a rather different story — one that matters for how any correction might unfold (chart 6).

Charts of the Week: Between Relief and Reality

Sandy Batten

260617V1.jpg

260617W1.jpg

Total retail sales rose a much larger-than-expected 0.9% m/m (6.9%y/y) in May following a slightly downwardly revised 0.4% monthly gain in April (previously 0.5% m/m), according to data released by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Action Economics Forecast Survey looked for a 0.5% m/m gain. Excluding autos, other sales increased 0.8% m/m (7.5% y/y) after an unrevised 0.7% m/m increase in April. Expectations were for a 0.5% monthly rise.

Elevated retail gasoline prices continued to boost the value of gasoline sales in May. Gasoline sales increased 3.4% m/m (26.5% y/y) in May on top of a 2.8% m/m increase in April. However, both monthly increases were slower than the 14.2% monthly jump reported in March. Gasoline sales accounted for 31% of total sales in May. However, sales were solid even without gasoline sales. Total sales excluding gasoline rose 0.7% m/m in April, up from 0.2% m/m in April. Sales excluding both autos and gasoline increased 0.5% m/m in May, the same monthly gain as in April.

The control group of sales (total sales excluding food services, autos, gasoline and building materials that the BEA uses to construct PCE in the national accounts) posted another solid increase in May, rising 0.7% m/m (6.3% y/y) following an unrevised 0.5% monthly increase in April. The strong performance at the end of Q1 followed by solid gains in April and May put the April-May level of control group sales up 8.6% at an annual rate from the Q1 average, pointing to another solid contribution by consumption to overall GDP growth in Q2. Consumer spending remains surprisingly resilient notwithstanding the recent hit to disposable income from the marked increase in energy prices.

Sales generally increased across major sectors in May. Auto sales rebounded, rising 1.2% m/m in May and more than reversing the 0.9% monthly decline in April. This was the third gain in auto sales in the past four months. Furniture sales rose 1.0% m/m but sales at electronics and appliance stores slipped 0.5% m/m. Building material sales gained 1.0% m/m on top of a 1.1% monthly increase in April. Clothing sales rose 0.3% m/m. Sales at general merchandise stores gained 0.4% m/m in May. Miscellaneous sales jumped 2.3% m/m in May, their first monthly gain in three months. Sales by nonstore retailers continued their strong performance, increasing 1.5% m/m in May on top of a 1.1% monthly rise in April. Over the first five months of this year, nonstore retail sales have risen 7.2%, not annualized. By contrast, food sales were unchanged in May from April while sales at restaurants edged down 0.1% m/m in May, their first monthly decline in four months.

Retail sales data can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. The expectations figures are from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in **AS1REPNA**.

260617X1.jpg

260617Y1.jpg

- Total sales increased 0.9% m/m in May, nearly twice expectations.
- Auto sales rebounded, rising 1.2% m/m in May, more than reversing a 0.9% monthly decline in April. 
- Gasoline sales rose 3.4% m/m in May.
- Excluding auto and gasoline sales, remaining sales increased by a solid 0.5% m/m in May, the same monthly increase as in April.
- Sales of the retail control group that is used to construct PCE rose 0.7% m/m in May and are 8.6% annualized above the Q1 average.

U.S. Retail Sales Jumped More than Expected in May

Winnie Tapasanun

260617A49.jpg

260617B49.jpg

Mortgage applications fell 3.8% w/w (+8.6% y/y) in the week ending June 12 following a 10.8% rebound in the week ending June 5, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey. The latest reading was the fourth w/w fall in five weeks, lowering the index to 269.5. Applications for loans to purchase a house slid 3.4% (+3.0% y/y) in the June 12 week, down for the fourth time in five weeks, after a 7.3% rise in the previous week. Applications for loan refinancing dropped 4.5% (+17.0% y/y) in the June 12 week, the seventh w/w decline in eight weeks, following a 15.3% jump in the June 5 week.

The effective interest rate on a 30-year fixed-rate loan was unchanged at 6.78% in the week ending June 12; it was above a low of 6.24% in the February 27 week but below a peak of 8.12% in the week of October 20, 2023. The rate on 15-year fixed-rate mortgages edged up 2bps to 6.18% in the June 12 week, the highest in three weeks, from 6.16% in the previous week; it was up from a low of 5.60% in the week of September 20, 2024 but down from a high of 7.44% in the week of October 27, 2023. Meanwhile, the rate on 30-year jumbo loans declined 4bps to 6.78% in the June 12 week from 6.82% in the prior week; it was above a low of 6.25% in the February 27 week but below a high of 7.99% in the week of October 27, 2023. The rate on a 5-year ARM fell 7bps to 6.16% in the June 12 week, the first w/w decline in six weeks, from 6.23% in the previous week (the highest since the week of August 15, 2025); it was above a low of 5.38% in the February 20 week but below a high of 7.31% in the week of October 27, 2023.

The share of applications for refinancing an existing loan edged up to 40.3% of total applications in the week ending June 12—the fourth w/w increase in five weeks and the highest level since the May 15 week—after rising to 40.2% in the week ending June 5; it remained below a peak of 61.9% in the January 16 week but above a low of 34.6% in the week of May 23, 2025. The adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) share of activity slipped to 8.5% in the June 12 week from 8.6% in the prior week; it was below a peak of 12.9% in the week of September 12, 2025 but above a low of 4.7% in the week of January 3, 2025.

The average size of a mortgage loan fell 1.5% w/w (+3.7% y/y) to $394,100 in the June 12 week, the lowest level since the April 3 week, after a 0.4% rebound to $399,900 in the June 5 week. The average size of a purchase loan dropped 1.9% (+4.0% y/y) to $456,600 in the June 12 week following a 2.8% recovery to $465,300 in the prior week. The average size of a loan to refinance a mortgage fell 0.4% (+7.0% y/y) to $301,400 in the June 12 week on top of a 2.3% decline to $302,500 in the previous week, marking the third consecutive w/w fall, the sixth decline in seven weeks, and the lowest level since the week of July 25, 2025.

The Mortgage Bankers Association Survey covers 75% of all U.S. retail residential mortgage applications and has been conducted weekly since 1990. Respondents include mortgage bankers, commercial banks and thrifts. The base period and value for all indexes is March 16, 1990=100. The figures for weekly mortgage applications and interest rates are available in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database.

- Purchase applications -3.4% w/w, down for fourth time in five weeks; refinance applications -4.5% w/w, seventh fall in eight weeks.
- Effective interest rate on 30-year fixed loans unchanged at 6.78%, up from a late-February low of 6.24%.
- Average loan size down for the second time in three weeks, lowest since the April 3 week.

U.S. Mortgage Applications Down 3.8% in the June 12 Week, Fourth Drop in Five Weeks

260617E.jpg

It's an interesting time for the Bank of England to be meeting; it has its next policy meeting on June 18. Top money center central banks have been meeting, and the European Central Bank delivered a rate hike, with what is believed to be a likelihood of another hike before the end of the year. The Bank of Japan as just met and executed a 25-basis-point rate hike that brought the overnight interest rate up to 1% for the first time in 31 years. The Federal Reserve meets today and although the Fed is not expected to make an interest rate change, it is widely expected to remove the language that implies the next rate change is likely to be a reduction. Against that background, there is a pending deal to be signed on Friday between the United States and Iran to end the hostilities, to open the Strait of Hormuz, and to allow a normalization—or at least a transition toward normalization—of traffic flow through the Strait of Hormuz and the restoration of the delivery of the world's oil supplies.

Against this background, the Bank of England will be making its rate decision. Part of this background shows other central banks having taken steps to become less accommodative or more vigilant against inflation risks and what have been ongoing overshoots of inflation targets by monetary policy globally. The Bank of England is part of this phenomenon as its rate of inflation, measured by the CPIH, is 3% year-over-year, a full percentage point above where it's supposed to be. However, both the CPIH and the HICP treatments for measuring U.K. inflation show inflation edging slightly lower—from 3% for the CPIH over 12 months to 2.7% over three months annualized. For the HICP, it moves from 2.9% over 12 months to a 2.7% annual rate over three months. Both of these are small moves but in the right direction. In addition, the CPIH core measure, excluding food, energy, alcohol, and tobacco, shows inflation declining from 2.9% over 12 months to 2.6% at an annual rate over six months, and to 1.7% at an annual rate over three months.

In short, inflation progress in the U.K. is very much in gear for the headline; inflation is quite moderately easing, however. For the core, the move lower is impressive and considerable. The question is whether the MPC at the Bank of England will find these movements sufficient in and of themselves to stay their hand and hold interest rate policy, or whether the Committee will join the ranks of central banks hiking interest rates to make sure that inflation makes that turn lower.

The situation in the Strait of Hormuz is hopeful, but not definitive, and there have been a number of ceasefires in the Middle East that have been called and then broken up relatively quickly. This time, markets are reacting to this particular announcement much more decisively and treating it as if this one is the ‘Real McCoy’ with oil prices having fallen down into the mid $70/barrel range and other indicators showing that markets are convinced that prices are moving lower too. Are the Bank of England's MPC members buying onto this as well? Or are they going to treat this as perhaps one last opportunity to get interest rates up and to make sure that the inflation rate goes down?

U.K. inflation on a monthly basis shows a slight tendency to accelerate in May, with inflation diffusion measuring inflation acceleration month-to-month at 58.3%, above the neutral reading of 50. However, diffusion had been at 50% in April and at 41.7% in March. Acceleration has been broadly blunted. In addition, the May increase in the CPIH was only 0.1%, the same as in April, with March having posted a much stronger increase of 0.4%.

Looking at trends sequentially over 12 months, six months and three months, diffusion is only 25% over 12 months; it is 50% over six months and 25% over three months. These metrics reinforce the view that inflation is not broadly accelerating but rather decelerating and moving back into line.

Taking the year-over-year inflation rate, it's a ranking of overall inflation rates back to January 2000. The headline CPIH is still high at a 74.4 percentile standing; that means it has been higher than 3% about 25% of the time and lower about 75% of the time. The average ranking across the various metrics in the table is 61%. That's above a ranking of 50% that delineates the median for the period. And despite the fast fall in the CPIH core rate, the year-over-year core is at 2.9% and has an 81.2 percentile ranking, meaning it has been higher since January 2000, less than 20% of the time. However, that 12-month rate of 2.9% is now down to 1.7% over three months. There are too many ways to look at inflation, at the environment, at what other central banks have done, and at trends to know with any certainty what the BOE will do.

260617.jpg

The Bank of England has had a long period of overshooting its inflation target. It certainly will want to make sure that it's on a clear path toward getting inflation back to 2%. There's a question here about how much the Bank of England will want to trust the trend that it sees, how much it wants to trust the fast drop in the core rate, and then how much it wants to believe that the deal struck with Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz is going to prove durable. There are no real answers to these questions; they're going to be based upon opinions and perceptions, and they're also going to be based upon the pressure that the Bank of England feels about needing to make sure that it gets inflation back to 2% after its long period of intransigence. We'll find this out tomorrow.

United Kingdom

U.K. Inflation Dips and Shows Progress

Michael J. Moran

260616A.jpg

260616B.jpg

The headline index on import prices rose 1.9% in May, close to the blistering pace in April and the fourth consecutive high-side reading. This recent pressure has pulled the year-over-year change to 6.7%, a distinct shift from last year when import prices showed no change over the 12 months of 2025.

Prices of petroleum products have been the most important factor behind the recent surge, increasing 13.0% in May after an average of 17.8% in the prior two months. However, prices excluding petroleum products also have stirred this year, as they have increased more than 0.6% in each of the past five months. May posted the firmest increase in this string of brisk readings (1.3%). Prices of consumer goods had been increasing moderately in early 2026, but they jumped 0.5% in May. The changes in capital and consumer goods led to an increase of 0.8% in nonpetroleum prices in May and an average of 0.6% in the first five months of the year.

Some observers might seek to look for the effects of tariffs on import prices, but these figures would not be especially helpful in this regard, as prices are recorded before the imposition of tariffs. However, if foreign producers wished to absorb the tariff burden to remain competitive in the US market, they could reduce invoiced prices to keep post-tariff prices steady. Indeed, nonpetroleum prices softened after April of last year following the announcement of President Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs. The subsequent easing of some of the draconian tariffs and the nullification of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act might be factors leading importers to return to original prices this year. Given that the pressure on import prices ex-petroleum has been concentrated in the capital goods area, there does not seem to be a rush to return to pre-tariff pricing.

On the export side, prices rose 1.3% in May, continuing the firm pace seen in the preceding four months. Petroleum prices have played a role in this pressure, as shown by an increase of 2.4% in the industrial supply category (petroleum prices alone are not available on the export side). Food prices also have jumped this year, increasing 0.8% in May after an average of 1.2% in the prior three months. Prices of capital goods were tame in the early months of the year, but they have firmed in the past two months (0.5% in April and 0.7% in May).

These import and export price series are not seasonally adjusted; they can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. Detailed figures are available in the **USINT** database. The expectations figure from the Action Economics Forecast Survey is in the **AS1REPNA** database.

260616C.jpg

260616D.jpg

- Petroleum products led import prices higher, but capital goods also had an influence.
- Petroleum was also a factor on the export side; some stirring in food and capital goods.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

EMU PPI Trends Press Higher…

U.S. Factory Inventory Rise Continued Firm

Challenger Layoffs Down Last Month

ADP Report: March Private Sector Payrolls Rose Slightly

U.S. Vehicle Sales Lowest Since 2005, Gasoline Price Up

U.S. Factory Inventory Rise Continued Firm

European Economic Data Hits Blow Hot and Cold: This Time Cold: German Retail Sales

Japan: TANKAN Results Show Growing Concerns Among Business