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/080226a.jpg" width="353">
Finished producer prices surged 1.0% during January following a 0.3% dip in December. The latest increase was triple Consensus expectations for a 0.3% rise. At an annual rate the PPI is up 13.5% during the last three months.
Less food and energy this measure of core prices rose 0.4% and it was double expectations. At an annual rate core producer prices have risen 3.7% during the last three months.
Energy prices made up half of December&#39;s decline with a 1.5% rise (+23.7% y/y). Gasoline prices rose 2.9% (48.1% y/y) after a 7.6% December drop. Home heating oil prices surged 8.5% (48.% y/y) and natural gas prices rose 0.7% (0.6% y/y) after five consecutive months of decline.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080226b.jpg" width="353">
Why Do Gasoline Prices React to Things That Have Not Happened? from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is available <a href="http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2007/c/pages/gas-prices.html">here</a>.
Finished consumer food prices jumped 1.7% (8.2% y/y) after an upwardly revised 1.4% December surge. During the past three months food prices have risen at a 12.0% annual rate.
Prices of core finished consumer goods rose 0.4% (2.7% y/y) lifted by a 0.8% rise (-0.5% y/y) in passenger car prices and a 0.4% (1.6%) gain in prices of household appliances. Core consumer nondurables prices were strong again and rose 0.4% (3.9% y/y). The three month gain in these prices is 3.9%. Pharmaceutical prices have been quite strong but apparel prices have been flat. <img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080226c.jpg" width="353">
Capital equipment prices also rose 0.4% (1.6% y/y) after a 0.1% December uptick. Heavy truck prices rose 0.4% (3.3% Y/Y) but prices for light trucks fell 0.2% (+0.2% y/y), down for the second consecutive month.
Intermediate goods prices surged 1.4% after a modest 0.2% December decline. Excluding food &amp; energy prices also were strong. They posted a 0.8% increase led by strength in industrial chemical prices which have risen 40.7% (AR) over the last three months. Steel mill prices also have been strong but copper prices have been down.
The crude materials PPI surged 2.5%, more than double the strong December rise. Crude energy materials prices jumped 1.8% (40.9% y/y). The core crude materials PPI surged 4.0% (21.0% y/y) as prices for iron &amp; steel scrap as well as prices for aluminum scrap have been quite strong.

<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/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">December</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">Finished Goods</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-0.3%&nbsp;</td>
<td>7.7%&nbsp;</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>&nbsp;4.9%&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>&nbsp;2.4%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>6.4%</td>
<td>&nbsp;8.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>&nbsp;5.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>&nbsp;1.1%&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;31.0%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>14.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>&nbsp;21.0%</td>
<td>15.9%</td>
<td>20.8%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Finished producer prices surged 1.0% during January following a 0.3% dip in December. The latest increase was triple Consensus expectations for a 0.3% rise. At an annual rate the PPI is up 13.5% during the last three months. Less food [...]

U.S. PPI Total & Core Strong

<!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/080226a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Finished producer prices surged 1.0% during January following
a 0.3% dip in December. The latest increase was triple Consensus
expectations for a 0.3% rise. At an annual rate the PPI is up 13.5%
during the last three months.
Less food and energy this measure of core prices rose 0.4% and
it was double expectations. At an annual rate core producer prices have
risen 3.7% during the last three months.
Energy prices made up half of December's decline with a 1.5%
rise (+23.7% y/y). Gasoline prices rose 2.9% (48.1% y/y) after a 7.6%
December drop. Home heating oil prices surged 8.5% (48.% y/y) and
natural gas prices rose 0.7% (0.6% y/y) after five consecutive months
of decline.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080226b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Why Do Gasoline Prices React to Things That Have Not
Happened? from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is
available <a href="http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2007/c/pages/gas-prices.html">here</a>.
Finished consumer food prices jumped 1.7% (8.2% y/y) after an
upwardly revised 1.4% December surge. During the past three months food
prices have risen at a 12.0% annual rate.
Prices of core finished consumer goods rose 0.4% (2.7% y/y)
lifted by a 0.8% rise (-0.5% y/y) in passenger car prices and a 0.4%
(1.6%) gain in prices of household appliances. Core consumer
nondurables prices were strong again and rose 0.4% (3.9% y/y). The
three month gain in these prices is 3.9%. Pharmaceutical prices have
been quite strong but apparel prices have been flat. <img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080226c.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Capital equipment prices also rose 0.4% (1.6% y/y) after a
0.1% December uptick. Heavy truck prices rose 0.4% (3.3% Y/Y) but
prices for light trucks fell 0.2% (+0.2% y/y), down for the second
consecutive month.
Intermediate goods prices surged 1.4% after a modest 0.2%
December decline. Excluding food &amp; energy prices also were
strong. They posted a 0.8% increase led by strength in industrial
chemical prices which have risen 40.7% (AR) over the last three months.
Steel mill prices also have been strong but copper prices have been
down.
The crude materials PPI surged 2.5%, more than double the
strong December rise. Crude energy materials prices jumped 1.8% (40.9%
y/y). The core crude materials PPI surged 4.0% (21.0% y/y) as prices
for iron &amp; steel scrap as well as prices for aluminum scrap
have been quite strong.

<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/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer
Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">December</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">Finished Goods</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-0.3%&nbsp;</td>
<td>7.7%&nbsp;</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>&nbsp;4.9%&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>&nbsp;2.4%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>6.4%</td>
<td>&nbsp;8.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>&nbsp;5.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>&nbsp;1.1%&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;31.0%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>14.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>&nbsp;21.0%</td>
<td>15.9%</td>
<td>20.8%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Case-Shiller Home Price
IndexLowest Since 2005 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller&nbsp;</a> February 26, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080226d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
According to the S&amp;P/Case-Shiller
Composite 20 home price index, U.S. home prices fell
2.1% m/m in December and repeated the prior months' decline. Home
prices have fallen in every month since July of 2006 and the total
decline over that period amounts to 10.5%. Prices were down 9.1% y/y.
The index of 20 U.S. cities and their surrounding areas is not
adjusted for the quality or the size of the home. The home price index
from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) does
make these adjustments. This series indicates that through the third
quarter home prices still were rising, but at a reduced 1.8% y/y rate.
The composite index of homes in 10 metropolitan areas fell
2.3% (-9.8% y/y) last month.
Home prices in San Diego California continued quite weak and
fell 15.0% y/y. Prices in Miami Florida also are down a sharp 17.5%
y/y. Home prices in Las Vegas Nevada also were on the list of very weak
home prices and fell 15.3% y/y while in Los Angeles prices fell 13.7%
y/y.
Relatively moderate declines were registered in New York
(-5.6% y/y), Chicago (-4.5% y/y) and Denver, also down 4.5% y/y.
An overview of the S&amp;P/Case-Shiller home price series
can be found <a href="http://www2.standardandpoors.com/portal/site/sp/en/us/page.topic/indices_csmahp/0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0.html">here</a>.
The S&amp;P/Case-Shiller home price series can be found in
Haver's REGIONAL database.
Bubble, Bubble, Toil, and Trouble is a 2007
article from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and it can be found <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/economicperspectives/ep_1qtr2007_part2_haines_rosen.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">S&amp;P/Case-Shiller
Home Price Index (NSA, Jan 00 = 100)</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">November</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">20 City Composite
Index</td>
<td>184.86</td>
<td>188.92</td>
<td>-9.1%</td>
<td>-3.9%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>15.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Gasoline Prices Surged,
Crude Oil Crested $100 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> February 26, 2008




Week to week, retail gasoline prices rose nearly a dime per
gallon to $3.13 per gallon, according to the US Department of Energy
survey. The retail price for regular grade gasoline was its highest
since early last June. This week, a rise in wholesale gasoline prices
portend further gains in the retail price.
The price for a barrel of WTI crude oil broke just over $100.
This week crude prices have backed off but just slightly to $99.41 per
barrel.
Natural gas prices were strong last week. They rose nearly
$1.00 per mmbtu from the January average due to colder Winter
temperatures.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080226e.jpg" height="265" width="312"><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080226f.jpg" height="265" width="312">

<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">02/25/08</th>
<th scope="col">02/18/08</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>3.13</td>
<td>3.04</td>
<td>31.3%</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>--</td>
<td>100.01</td>
<td>72.2%</td>
<td>94.00</td>
<td>61.11</td>
<td>58.16</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Consumer Confidence Plummet,
Expectations the Dreariest 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller&nbsp;</a> February 26, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080226g.jpg" height="265" width="312"><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080226h.jpg" height="265" width="312">
The Conference Board reported today that consumer confidence
plummeted this month. The 14.1% m/m decline to a reading of 75.0 was
the largest m/m give back since September of 2005 and it dropped the
level to its lowest since early 2003. A consensus of economists foresaw
less of a decline to a level of 82.
A decline in the expectations component accounted for much of
last month's decline in overall confidence. The 16.5% m/m drop followed
an 8.6% January decline and lowered the expectations component to its
lowest since early 1991. Expectations for business conditions
dropped to a 36 year low while expectations for employment dropped to
the lowest since 1980. 
Respondents planning to buy an automobile within the next six
months plummeted but plans to buy an appliance rose.
The present conditions index fell a somewhat lesser 12.0% m/m
to the lowest level since late 2004. Just 18.5% of respondents saw
business conditions as good, near the least since 2004. Jobs as
plentiful were seen by 18.6% while 23.8% saw them as hard to get. 
The expected inflation rate in twelve months was stable m/m at
5.3% but that still was up from the 5.1% expected rate during 2006 and
2007.
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Conference
Board &nbsp;(SA, 1985=100)</th>
<th scope="col">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">Consumer
Confidence Index</td>
<td>75.0</td>
<td>87.3</td>
<td>-32.6%</td>
<td>103.4</td>
<td>105.9</td>
<td>100.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Present Conditions</td>
<td>100.6</td>
<td>114.3</td>
<td>-26.6%</td>
<td>128.8</td>
<td>130.2</td>
<td>116.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Expectations</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

U.S. Chain Store Sales Up,
Gasoline Prices Surged 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> February 26, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080212a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
According to the International Council of Shopping Centers
ICSC-UBS Chain store survey, chain store sales rose 0.5% last week
after no change during the prior period. Sales so far this month are up
0.5% from January after a 1.3% gain during that period.

During the last ten years there has been a 45% correlation
between the y/y change in chain store sales and the change in nonauto
retail sales less gasoline.

The ICSC-UBS retail
chain-store sales index is constructed using the same-store sales
(stores open for one year) reported by 78 stores of seven retailers:
Dayton Hudson, Federated, Kmart, May, J.C. Penney, Sears and Wal-Mart.


The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC-UBS fell
0.7% two weeks ago. It as the fifth decline in the last six weeks.
Retail gasoline prices recently moved further off the high
reached last Spring of over $3.20 per gallon, according to the US
Department of Energy survey.Last week the average retail price for
regular grade gasoline fell to $2.96, down 8.0% from last year's peak
in May. Prices did, however, remain up nearly 6% from an average of
$2.80 last year.
The recent decline in gasoline prices owes mostly to the
topping and decline in the price of crude oil. For spot WTI crude oil
prices last week of $88.42 per barrel were down 10% from last year's
high which nearly touched $100 per barrel.
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS
(SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">02/23/08</th>
<th scope="col">02/16/08</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain
Store Sales</td>
<td>489.9</td>
<td>487.4</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W4/@W4.HTM">Weekly
Prices</a></th>
<th scope="col">02/25/08</th>
<th scope="col">02/18/08</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retail Gasoline ($ per Gallon)</td>
<td>3.13</td>
<td>3.04</td>
<td>31.3%</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>--</td>
<td>100.01</td>
<td>72.2%</td>
<td>94.00</td>
<td>61.11</td>
<td>58.16</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Louise Curley

<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/080225e.jpg" width="353">
Inflation in Singapore rose more than expected to 6.61% in January of this year, 2.2 percentage points above the 4.41% in December. A big part of the rise was due to the government&#39;s increasing the valuation of public housing on which imputed rents are partly based. The housing component rose 11.03% in January after rising only 2.88% in December.
While the jum<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080225f.jpg" width="353">p in housing cost in December was somewhat of an anomaly, the rise in food prices has become a regular feature in the cost of living ever since mid 2007. The first chart shows that, except for the spike in the housing component in January, the food component has been increasing in importance relative to the housing component since early 2007.
World grain prices rises have been pushing up the cost of food. The second chart shows the daily world prices of corn, soybeans and wheat for the past year. The continued rise in these prices in February suggests that further food inflation is in the works, not only for Singapore, but for most other countries.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">INFLATION&nbsp; (Y/Y %Chg in CPI)</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 08</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Oct 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Sep 07</th>
<th scope="col">Jul 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jun 07</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Singapore</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Total &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
<td>6.61</td>
<td>4.41</td>
<td>422</td>
<td>3.63</td>
<td>2.76</td>
<td>2.96</td>
<td>2.56</td>
<td>2.10</td>
<td>0.96</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Food</td>
<td>5.84</td>
<td>5.50</td>
<td>5.22</td>
<td>4.27</td>
<td>2.75</td>
<td>3.30</td>
<td>2081</td>
<td>1.56</td>
<td>1.33</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"> &nbsp;&nbsp;Housing</td>
<td>11.03</td>
<td>2.88</td>
<td>2.88</td>
<td>2.30</td>
<td>0.39</td>
<td>1.06</td>
<td>9.67</td>
<td>0.45</td>
<td>2.67</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Inflation in Singapore rose more than expected to 6.61% in January of this year, 2.2 percentage points above the 4.41% in December. A big part of the rise was due to the government's increasing the valuation of public housing on which [...]

ааа Rise in Singapore's Inflation Spotlights Rises in World Grain Pricesа

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/080225g.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Italy&#8217;s retail sales rose in December by a thin 0.1%. The
three month advance was at annual rate of 0.4% even below the six month
pace of 0.6% and near the Yr/Yr pace of 0.2% - rotten growth rates all.
These nominal sales gains clearly imply persisting declines in volume
terms. Italy&#8217;s nominal retail sales have been in long, slow, declining
growth phase.
The chart on the left plots nominal Italy retail sales Vs the
EMU volume index for retail sales. The EMU Volume index shows volume
plunging at the end of 2007. Italy shows nominal sales steadily eroding
with real sales likely falling at an accelerated pace at the end of
2007 since inflation flared at year end as energy prices rose strongly
throughout the Euro Area. With the Q4 numbers in, nominal Italian
retail sales fell by 0.4% saar in Q4 as food sales advanced by 0.6%.
Obviously the Italian consumer is under stress. And that is a theme for
the whole of the Euro Area as well.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr><th colspan="9" scope="col"> Italy Retail Sales Growth</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Nominal</td>
<td>Dec-07</td>
<td>Nov-07</td>
<td>Oct-07</td>
<td>3-MO</td>
<td>6-MO</td>
<td>12-MO</td>
<td>YrAgo</td>
<td>Q-2-Date</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retail Trade</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Food, Beverages &amp;
Tobacco</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Clothing &amp; Fur</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>-2.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</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>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Italy’s retail sales rose in December by a thin 0.1%. The three month advance was at annual rate of 0.4% even below the six month pace of 0.6% and near the Yr/Yr pace of 0.2% - rotten growth rates all. These nominal sales gains [...]

Italy Retail Sales Trends Continue to Erode

<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/080225d.jpg" width="353">
According to the National Association For Business Economists (NABE), the U.S. economy will skirt an economic downturn in 2008. During 1Q08 and 2Q08 growth on average is, however, expected to be the lowest since the end of the last recession in 2001.
Helping the economy to avoid a recession will be further cuts in the Federal funds rate to a low of 2.5% next quarter. There it is expected to remain until yearend.
Yields on the 10 Year Treasury note are expected to bottom at 3.70% this quarter.
The late &#39;08 recovery in quarterly economic growth is expected to be at a moderate, near trend rate of just under 3.0%. For the full year, growth this year 1.8% is forecast to be the weakest since 2001.
The NABE Outlook is available in Haver&#39;s SURVEYS database.
Improving Risk Management in Light of Recent Market Events is today&#39;s speech by Fed Governor Randall S. Kroszner and it can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/D7BB4B12FA20478A9F0504752AE2190F.htm"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">NABE Forecast</th>
<th scope="col">1Q 08</th>
<th scope="col">2Q 08</th>
<th scope="col">3Q 08</th>
<th scope="col">4Q 08</th>
<th scope="col">2009</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">U.S. Real GDP (%, AR)</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

According to the National Association For Business Economists (NABE), the U.S. economy will skirt an economic downturn in 2008. During 1Q08 and 2Q08 growth on average is, however, expected to be the lowest since the end of the last [...]

Economists Forecast No U.S. Recession in 2008

<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/080225b.jpg" width="353">
The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago reported that its January National Activity Index (CFNAI) remained negative, at -0.58. The three month moving average of the index also remained negative at -0.60 which was near the lowest since 2003.
The Bank indicated that the negative value of the three month moving average suggests low inflationary pressure from economic activity.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080225c.jpg" width="353">
A zero value of the CFNAI indicates that the economy is expanding at its historical trend rate of growth of roughly 3%. During the last twenty years there has been a 68% correlation between the level of the CFNAI and q/q growth in real GDP.
During January, each of the four broad categories of indicators &#151; employment, production, consumption and housing &#151; continued to make negative contributions to the CFNAI.
The CFNAI is a weighted average of 85 indicators of economic activity. The indicators reflect activity in the following categories: production &amp; income, the labor market, personal consumption &amp; housing, manufacturing &amp; trade sales, and inventories &amp; orders.
The complete CFNAI report is available <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/economic_research_and_data/files/cfnai_february2008.pdf">here</a>.
The Globalization of U.S. Business Investment from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is available <a href="http://dallasfed.org/research/staff/2008/staff0801.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/SURVEYS/@S5/@S503/@S503.HTM">Chicago Fed</a></th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">January &#39;07</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">CFNAI</td>
<td>-0.58</td>
<td>-0.69</td>
<td>-1.00</td>
<td>-0.42</td>
<td>0.01</td>
<td>0.28</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago reported that its January National Activity Index (CFNAI) remained negative, at -0.58. The three month moving average of the index also remained negative at -0.60 which was near the lowest since [...]

Chicago Fed National Activity Index Still Negative, Inflationary Pressure Low

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080225a.jpg" width="353">
The National Association of Realtors reported that January sales of existing single family homes slipped 0.4% to 4.890M after a 2.2% decline during December. The decline was slightly less than general expectations and new seasonal factors revised past data just slightly.
Sales of existing single family homes ticked up 0.5% last month, the first m/m increase in nearly one year.
By region, home sales in the Northeast fell 3.6% (-25.7% y/y). In the Midwest January sales rose 3.4% (-20.0% y/y) and sales in the South also rose 0.6% (-20.9% y/y). Single family homes in the West fell 1.2% (-28.0% y/y) after no change during December.
The median price of an existing single family home fell 2.9% (-4.6% y/y) last month. Home prices were off 12.2% in January from their peak last June.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Existing Single Family Home Sales (Thous)</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">y/y %</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">January &#39;07</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>4,890</td>
<td>-23.4</td>
<td>4,910</td>
<td>6,380</td>
<td>5,672</td>
<td>6,508</td>
<td>7,076</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Northeast</td>
<td>810</td>
<td>-25.7</td>
<td>840</td>
<td>1,090</td>
<td>1,008</td>
<td>1,090</td>
<td>1,168</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Midwest</td>
<td>1,200</td>
<td>-20.0</td>
<td>1,160</td>
<td>1,500</td>
<td>1,331</td>
<td>1,491</td>
<td>1,589</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; South</td>
<td>1,950</td>
<td>-22.0</td>
<td>1,960</td>
<td>2,500</td>
<td>2,240</td>
<td>2,576</td>
<td>2,704</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; West</td>
<td>930</td>
<td>-28.5</td>
<td>930</td>
<td>1,300</td>
<td>1,093</td>
<td>1,353</td>
<td>1,617</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Single-Family</td>
<td>4,340</td>
<td>-22.4</td>
<td>4,320</td>
<td>5,590</td>
<td>4,958</td>
<td>5,703</td>
<td>6,181</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Median Price, Total, $</td>
<td>201,100</td>
<td>-4.6</td>
<td>207,000</td>
<td>210,900</td>
<td>216,617</td>
<td>222,000</td>
<td>218,217</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The National Association of Realtors reported that January sales of existing single family homes slipped 0.4% to 4.890M after a 2.2% decline during December. The decline was slightly less than general expectations and new seasonal [...]

U.S. Existing Home Sales Slipped & Prices Off More

<!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/080225a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The National Association of Realtors reported that January
sales of existing single family homes slipped 0.4% to 4.890M after a
2.2% decline during December. The decline was slightly less than
general expectations and new seasonal factors revised past data just
slightly.
Sales of existing single family homes ticked up 0.5% last
month, the first m/m increase in nearly one year.
By region, home sales in the Northeast fell 3.6% (-25.7% y/y).
In the Midwest January sales rose 3.4% (-20.0% y/y) and sales in the
South also rose 0.6% (-20.9% y/y). Single family homes in the West fell
1.2% (-28.0% y/y) after no change during December.
The median price of an existing single family home fell 2.9%
(-4.6% y/y) last month. Home prices were off 12.2% in January from
their peak last June.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Existing
Single Family 
Home Sales (Thous)</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">y/y %</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">January '07</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>4,890</td>
<td>-23.4</td>
<td>4,910</td>
<td>6,380</td>
<td>5,672</td>
<td>6,508</td>
<td>7,076</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Northeast</td>
<td>810</td>
<td>-25.7</td>
<td>840</td>
<td>1,090</td>
<td>1,008</td>
<td>1,090</td>
<td>1,168</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Midwest</td>
<td>1,200</td>
<td>-20.0</td>
<td>1,160</td>
<td>1,500</td>
<td>1,331</td>
<td>1,491</td>
<td>1,589</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; South</td>
<td>1,950</td>
<td>-22.0</td>
<td>1,960</td>
<td>2,500</td>
<td>2,240</td>
<td>2,576</td>
<td>2,704</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; West</td>
<td>930</td>
<td>-28.5</td>
<td>930</td>
<td>1,300</td>
<td>1,093</td>
<td>1,353</td>
<td>1,617</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Single-Family</td>
<td>4,340</td>
<td>-22.4</td>
<td>4,320</td>
<td>5,590</td>
<td>4,958</td>
<td>5,703</td>
<td>6,181</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Median Price, Total, $</td>
<td>201,100</td>
<td>-4.6</td>
<td>207,000</td>
<td>210,900</td>
<td>216,617</td>
<td>222,000</td>
<td>218,217</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Chicago Fed National Activity
Index Still Negative, Inflationary Pressure Low 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> February 25, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080225b.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago reported that its January
National Activity Index (CFNAI) remained negative, at -0.58. The three
month moving average of the index also remained negative at -0.60 which
was near the lowest since 2003.
The Bank indicated that the negative value of the three month
moving average suggests low inflationary pressure from economic
activity.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080225c.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
A zero value of the CFNAI indicates that the economy is
expanding at its historical trend rate of growth of roughly 3%. During
the last twenty years there has been a 68% correlation between the
level of the CFNAI and q/q growth in real GDP.
During January, each of the four broad categories of
indicators &#8212; employment, production, consumption and housing &#8212;
continued to make negative contributions to the CFNAI.
The CFNAI is a weighted average of 85 indicators of economic
activity. The indicators reflect activity in the following categories:
production &amp; income, the labor market, personal consumption
&amp; housing, manufacturing &amp; trade sales, and inventories
&amp; orders.
The complete CFNAI report is available <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/economic_research_and_data/files/cfnai_february2008.pdf">here</a>.
The Globalization of
U.S. Business Investment from the Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas is available <a href="http://dallasfed.org/research/staff/2008/staff0801.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/SURVEYS/@S5/@S503/@S503.HTM">Chicago
Fed</a></th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">January '07</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">CFNAI</td>
<td>-0.58</td>
<td>-0.69</td>
<td>-1.00</td>
<td>-0.42</td>
<td>0.01</td>
<td>0.28</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Economists Forecast No U.S.
Recession in 2008 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> February 25, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080225d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
According to the National Association For Business Economists
(NABE), the U.S. economy will skirt an economic downturn in 2008.
During 1Q08 and 2Q08 growth on average is, however, expected to be the
lowest since the end of the last recession in 2001.
Helping the economy to avoid a recession will be further cuts
in the Federal funds rate to a low of 2.5% next quarter. There it is
expected to remain until yearend.
Yields on the 10 Year Treasury note are expected to bottom at
3.70% this quarter.
The late '08 recovery in quarterly economic growth is expected
to be at a moderate, near trend rate of just under 3.0%. For the full
year, growth this year 1.8% is forecast to be the weakest since 2001.
The NABE Outlook is available in Haver's SURVEYS
database.
Improving Risk Management in Light of Recent Market
Events is today's speech by Fed Governor Randall S. Kroszner
and it can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/D7BB4B12FA20478A9F0504752AE2190F.htm">
here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">NABE
Forecast</th>
<th scope="col">1Q 08</th>
<th scope="col">2Q 08</th>
<th scope="col">3Q 08</th>
<th scope="col">4Q 08</th>
<th scope="col">2009</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">U.S. Real GDP (%, AR)</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Rise in Singapore's Inflation Spotlights Rises in World Grain
Prices&nbsp; 
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise
Curley</a> February 25, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080225e.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Inflation in Singapore rose more than expected to 6.61% in
January of this year, 2.2 percentage points above the 4.41% in
December. A big part of the rise was due to the government's increasing
the valuation of public housing on which imputed rents are partly
based. The housing component rose 11.03% in January after rising only
2.88% in December.
While the jum<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080225f.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">p in
housing cost in December was somewhat of an anomaly, the rise in food
prices has become a regular feature in the cost of living ever since
mid 2007. The first chart shows that, except for the spike in the
housing component in January, the food component has been increasing in
importance relative to the housing component since early 2007.
World grain prices rises have been pushing up the cost of
food. The second chart shows the daily world prices of corn, soybeans
and wheat for the past year. The continued rise in these prices in
February suggests that further food inflation is in the works, not only
for Singapore, but for most other countries.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">INFLATION&nbsp;
(Y/Y %Chg in CPI)</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 08</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Oct 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Sep 07</th>
<th scope="col">Jul 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jun 07</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Singapore</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Total
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
<td>6.61</td>
<td>4.41</td>
<td>422</td>
<td>3.63</td>
<td>2.76</td>
<td>2.96</td>
<td>2.56</td>
<td>2.10</td>
<td>0.96</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Food</td>
<td>5.84</td>
<td>5.50</td>
<td>5.22</td>
<td>4.27</td>
<td>2.75</td>
<td>3.30</td>
<td>2081</td>
<td>1.56</td>
<td>1.33</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">
&nbsp;&nbsp;Housing</td>
<td>11.03</td>
<td>2.88</td>
<td>2.88</td>
<td>2.30</td>
<td>0.39</td>
<td>1.06</td>
<td>9.67</td>
<td>0.45</td>
<td>2.67</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Italy Retail Sales Trends Continueto Erode 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> February 25, 2008


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080225g.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Italy&#8217;s retail sales rose in December by a thin 0.1%. The
three month advance was at annual rate of 0.4% even below the six month
pace of 0.6% and near the Yr/Yr pace of 0.2% - rotten growth rates all.
These nominal sales gains clearly imply persisting declines in volume
terms. Italy&#8217;s nominal retail sales have been in long, slow, declining
growth phase.
The chart on the left plots nominal Italy retail sales Vs the
EMU volume index for retail sales. The EMU Volume index shows volume
plunging at the end of 2007. Italy shows nominal sales steadily eroding
with real sales likely falling at an accelerated pace at the end of
2007 since inflation flared at year end as energy prices rose strongly
throughout the Euro Area. With the Q4 numbers in, nominal Italian
retail sales fell by 0.4% saar in Q4 as food sales advanced by 0.6%.
Obviously the Italian consumer is under stress. And that is a theme for
the whole of the Euro Area as well.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="9" scope="col"> Italy
Retail Sales Growth</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Nominal</td>
<td>Dec-07</td>
<td>Nov-07</td>
<td>Oct-07</td>
<td>3-MO</td>
<td>6-MO</td>
<td>12-MO</td>
<td>YrAgo</td>
<td>Q-2-Date</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retail Trade</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Food, Beverages &amp;
Tobacco</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Clothing &amp; Fur</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>-2.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</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>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

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

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.

Import and Export Prices: Firm in May

Sandy Batten

260616F4.jpg

260616G4.jpg

Weighed down by further rises in longer-term interest rates, housing construction continued to languish in May. Housing starts plunged 15.4% m/m (-8.7% y/y) in May on top of a downwardly revised 8.5% monthly decline in April (previously -2.8% m/m). The level of starts plummeted to 1.177 million, the lowest since May 2020 when the economy was locked down during the COVID pandemic. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected a 2.4% m/m decline to a level of 1.432 million units. The April/May average for starts was 1.285 million, 9.4% below the Q1 average. Residential investment has been a persistent drag on real GDP growth recently, subtracting from overall growth in each of the previous five quarters. Today’s report points to another subtraction in Q2.

Single-family starts fell 1.9% m/m (-6.7% y/y) in May on top of a downwardly revised 11.6% monthly plunge in April (previously -9.0% m/m). Multi-family starts, which had generally been trending up over the past year or so, albeit with quite a bit of volatility, plummeted 40.2% m/m (-14.2% y/y) in May following a downwardly revised 2.4% m/m decline in April (previously +10.3% m/m).

Starts fell in three of the four major geographic regions. Starts rose 3.7% m/m in the Midwest with gains in both single-family and multi-family starts. By contrast, starts fell in each of the other three regions, plunging 26.8% m/m in the Northeast, the third monthly decline in the past four months, falling 17.0% m/m in the South, also the third monthly decline in the past four months, and declining 17.2% m/m in the West, the fourth monthly decline in the past five months.

The performance of building permits is typically less volatile than that of starts. Total permits edged down 0.7% m/m (-0.2% y/y) to 1.413 million units in May following a 4.4% monthly gain in April and an 11.5% m/m fall in March. Expectations were for a 0.3% monthly increase in May. Single-family permits edged up 0.6% m/m (-1.8% y/y) in May versus a 1.6% monthly decline in April and a 3.7% m/m drop in March. By contrast, multi-family permits fell 2.8% m/m (+2.5 y/y) in May but this was after a 15.8% monthly surge in April.

In contrast to the regional performance of starts, permits fell in the Midwest (-18.7% m/m) but rose in each of the other three major geographic regions. Permits increased 3.1% m/m in the Northeast in May on top of a 18.1% monthly jump in April. They edged up 1.6% m/m in the South and rose 5.5% m/m in the West, the first monthly gain in three months.

The housing starts and permits figures can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. The expectations figure is contained in the **AS1REPNA** database.

260616H4.jpg

260616I4.jpg

- Housing starts plunged 15.4% m/m in May to the lowest level since May 2020 with a significant downward revision to the previously reported April decline.
- Single family starts fell 1.9% m/m while multi-family starts plummeted 40.2% m/m to their lowest level since November 2024.
- Less volatile permits slid 0.7% m/m in May with a slight rise (+0.6% m/m) in single-family permits and a 2.8% monthly drop in multi-family permits.

U.S. Housing Starts Plunged in May

260616E.jpg

The ZEW diffusion survey (an up-minus-down survey) showed mixed improvements in the economic situation and improvements for macroeconomic expectations in June. The report shows the economic situation improving in the United States and China, with the euro area taking a small step back (to -43.4 in June from -41.4 in May), while Germany also saw a step back in the economic situation (to -81.0 from -77.8). The ranking metrics show the German reading as lower only 13.8% of the time—the weakest showing among the four. The EMU ranking is at a 36.7 percentile, with the U.S. ranking close to that at a 42.5 percentile. China has a 76.2 percentile ranking over a shorter timeline.

Macro expectations show solid improvements reported in Germany, the U.S., and China. Macroeconomic rankings all are muted, with the U.S. at a 39.9 percentile standing as the strongest, followed by Germany at a 35.2 percentile standing and China at a 22.2 percentile standing.

Inflation expectations are still high across the board, ranging from a low percentile standing for the EMU, Germany, and China—from a euro area low of 78.6 to a high standing for this group at 85.7 for China. In contrast, the U.S. ranking is still high, but only at its 61.8 percentile. And all the inflation expectations readings fell in June as optimism on opening the Strait of Hormuz has been growing. 

Nonetheless, expectations for short-term rates have been rising. They rose solidly in the EMU and China, and strongly in the U.S., from 10.5 in May to 38.5 in June.

In contrast, long-term rate expectations rose across the board as well but by modest amounts. The rankings for short-term expectations are stronger for all three countries compared to the ranking on long-term rate expectations. I suppose we can understand that as expectations of anti-inflation medicine.

Stock markets are assessed as higher month-to-month in the EMU and in all three countries. China has a strong ranking for its stock market assessment at its 81st percentile. The U.S. standing is above its median at its 51.5 percentile; the euro area expectation is at its 34.2 percentile, with German stock market expectations still weak at its 23.6 percentile.

260616.jpg

The pending conflict-ending deal in the Middle East should be a catalyst for further improvement. While the U.S.-Iran deal is not yet announced in detail—or even signed—market reactions are clear-cut across the board; there is no sign that this deal is expected to wither so soon. But it still has issues and contentious elements, such as Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the fact that the Israel is not on board with what it regards as a too-early exit from hostilities. Israel wants regime change and warns of a more difficult future without one.

ZEW Shows Mixed Conditions and an Expectations Rebound

Winnie Tapasanun

260615R23.jpg

260615S23.jpg

Industrial production (IP) increased a less-than-expected 0.1% m/m in May, the third monthly gain in four months, following an upwardly revised 0.9% rise in April (+0.7% initially) and a 0.3% decline in March (unrevised), according to data from the Federal Reserve Board. A 0.3% m/m May increase had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The year-on-year rate accelerated to 1.7% in May, the highest since January, from 1.4% in April (0.3% in May 2025). The May IP index at 102.6 was 3.3% above a low of 99.3 in November 2024 and 3.4% above a low of 99.2 in January 2024.

By **industry groups**, manufacturing production was essentially unchanged m/m (+1.4% y/y) in May after upwardly revised gains of 0.7% in April (+0.6% initially) and 0.2% in March (+0.1% previously). Durable goods production rose 0.8% (3.2% y/y) in May, the fourth m/m rise in five months, after a 1.1% increase in April. Within durables, almost all categories rose m/m in May, led by a 2.3% gain (-2.0% y/y) in wood products, followed by increases of 1.8% (3.1% y/y) in nonmetallic mineral products, 1.3% (4.4% y/y) in primary metals, 1.2% (-1.7% y/y) in motor vehicles & parts, 1.0% (-4.5% y/y) in furniture & related products, 0.9% (10.3% y/y) in computer & electronic products, 0.8% (2.5% y/y) in fabricated metal products, 0.5% (6.9% y/y) in aerospace & miscellaneous transportation equipment, 0.5% (2.7% y/y) in electrical equipment, appliances & components, and 0.2% (4.3% y/y) in machinery. Notably, aircraft & parts production climbed 1.1% (11.7% y/y), the fourth consecutive m/m rise, after a 2.6% April gain. Meanwhile, miscellaneous durable goods were virtually unchanged m/m (+0.9% y/y) in May following a 0.8% decline in April.

Nondurable goods production slid 0.9% (-0.6% y/y) in May, the first m/m slide since January, after a 0.3% increase in April. The May output decline was led by a 3.0% drop (-1.1% y/y) in petroleum & coal products, followed by decreases of 2.4% (-4.1% y/y) in textiles & product mills, 1.6% (-2.3% y/y) in printing & related support activities, 0.8% (0.0% y/y) in chemicals, 0.8% (-3.0% y/y) in paper, 0.5% (-0.4% y/y) in food, beverages & tobacco, and 0.3% (-0.2% y/y) in plastics & rubber products. In contrast, apparel & leather goods—the only rising category—recovered 2.4% (-0.1% y/y) in May following two successive m/m declines.

Mining activity advanced 1.3% (2.0% y/y) in May, the fourth m/m gain in five months, after a 0.2% increase in April (-0.1% initially). Utilities output, however, fell 0.4% (+3.1% y/y) following a 2.2% April rebound (+1.9% initially), reflecting a 1.7% drop (+1.8% y/y) in electric utilities output and an 8.5% rise (12.5% y/y) in natural gas utilities output.

By **market groups**, construction supplies production increased 1.1% (2.3% y/y) in May, up for the second time in three months, reversing a 0.3% decline in April. Business equipment output rose 0.6% (5.7% y/y), the fifth m/m rise in six months, following a 1.8% April gain. Materials production grew 0.3% (1.9% y/y), the third m/m increase in four months, after a 0.7% April rise. In contrast, consumer goods output fell 0.5% (-0.6% y/y) after a 1.2% April rebound, reflecting a 0.5% increase (-3.0% y/y) in durable consumer goods and a 0.8% decrease (+0.1% y/y) in nondurable consumer goods.

In **special classifications**, factory output of selected high-tech industries rose 1.8% (12.6% y/y) in May on top of an upwardly revised 2.2% rise in April (+1.0% initially)—marking the third straight m/m gain and the seventh in eight months. Manufacturing production excluding selected high-tech industries held steady m/m (+1.1% y/y) in May after a 0.7% increase in April, while manufacturing production excluding selected high-tech and motor vehicles & parts dipped 0.1% (+1.3% y/y) following a 0.5% April rise.

Capacity utilization inched up to 76.2% in May, the highest since July 2025, from 76.1% in April (unrevised). The result matched the forecast by the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The May reading was 3.2 percentage points below its long-run (1972–2025) average. Manufacturing capacity utilization held at 75.7% in May and April (75.8% previously), the highest since September 2025; the May rate was 2.5 percentage points below its long-run average.

Industrial production and capacity data are in Haver’s **USECON** database. Additional detail on production and capacity utilization can be found in the **IP** database. The expectations figures come from the **AS1REPNA** database.

260615T23.jpg

260615U23.jpg

- May IP +0.1% (+1.7% y/y), third m/m increase in four months, led by a 1.3% gain in mining.
- Manufacturing unchanged (+1.4% y/y), w/ durables +0.8% and nondurables -0.9%.
- Selected high-tech +1.8%, third straight m/m rise; motor vehicles +1.2%, fifth gain in six mths.
- Utilities -0.4%, led by a 1.7% drop in electric utilities output.
- Key categories in market groups mostly up.
- Capacity utilization up to a 10-month-high 76.2%; mfg. capacity utilization steady at 75.7%.

U.S. Industrial Production Up Marginally in May; Manufacturing Flat

260615E.jpg

The economy watchers survey, along with other surveys, was doing fine until about March in the wake of the Iran war and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. With that action, the economy watchers index dove sharply from a level of 48.9 in February to 42.2 in March and slipped further to 40.8 in April. The various sector gauges for the retail sector, eating & drinking places, the service sector, and employment are all lower. The only improvement in April came from the future index, where there was some minor optimism about the potential for conditions to improve ahead. And, of course, over the weekend, there is the announcement of a U.S.-Iran deal to end the hostilities between the two countries. That is expected to be signed on Friday and then will put the war into a pause phase for the next 60 days, with the hope that the two sides can come to agreement on some of the stickier elements, including Iran's access to nuclear materials, which has yet to be hammered out.

That omission makes the announcement of this arrangement as a conflict ending deal hugely speculative. Another sticking point is that Israel is not on board and is still engaged in fighting with Hezbollah.

The Teikoku survey, another survey using diffusion indexes that describes Japanese sectors, weakened sharply in March and weakened across the board again in April. Manufacturing, retailing, wholesaling, services, and construction sectors all are posting weaker numbers in April than in March.

The percentile rankings for the economy watchers survey and the Teikoku surveys are both very weak, with the economy watchers standings in the 10th percentile range or lower; the Teikoku rankings are generally higher, around the 30th percentile or perhaps as low as the 20th percentile, as seen in construction. These are still very weak readings. All the raw diffusion readings are below 50, indicating contraction.

The sector indexes from METI on manufacturing and services, which both weakened in March, rebounded in April; in both cases, the April readings were above the February readings. Standings of these indexes based on growth rates are around the 80th percentile; at the 79th percentile for industry and at the 82.5 percentile for the tertiary or services index. Based on the value of the index itself, the tertiary index has a standing at its 98.9 percentile, which we would expect over time for an index that simply grows, as is the case for the METI indexes that are not diffusion indexes. However, the industrial index for Japan has only a 19.9 percentile standing, indicating the stress that Japan's industrial sector has been through, although the current ranking based on the growth rate shows that there is some recovery in progress. The industry level index is 6.3% below its January 2020 level, while the tertiary index is 3.1% above its January 2020 level.

The leading economic index has continued to rise during all these times. It rose in February compared to January, and it rose again in March compared to February; now in April compared to March, it was up again to 115.9, from the March reading of 115.4. Based on year-over-year growth, the leading economic index has a 95.1 percentile standing, which is relatively strong. Based on the index level, we get another strong reading at the 93.2 percentile mark. The leading index is also up 12.9% from its January 2020 level.

260615.jpg

The report of a deal to end the U.S. embargo of Iran and open the Strait of Hormuz without tolls is potentially a real gamechanger for the economic outlook. However, the deal still had pieces to be negotiated, and I, for one, am very wary since we know Iran wants to have nuclear access and the U.S. wants to block it. I just don’t see what a 60-day cooling period for negotiation will do. It will push the U.S. closer to midterm elections and make Trump less willing to engage in conflict with Iran, which is likely to remain intransigent on this issue of nuclear access. I view this as the eye of a hurricane, a period in which there will be calm, with the potential for a reset of confrontation down the road, say 60 days on.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

U.S. PPI Total & Core Strong

U.S. PPI Total & Core Strong

ааа Rise in Singapore's Inflation Spotlights Rises in World Grain Pricesа

Italy Retail Sales Trends Continue to Erode

Economists Forecast No U.S. Recession in 2008

Chicago Fed National Activity Index Still Negative, Inflationary Pressure Low

U.S. Existing Home Sales Slipped & Prices Off More

U.S. Existing Home Sales Slipped & Prices Off More