Carol Stone, CBE

<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/070227d.jpg" width="353">
Existing home sales had a surprising gain in January, rising 3.0% to 6.46 million (SAAR), the largest volume since June. Market forecasts called for an increase of just 0.5% or so. Note that all these data have undergone annual seasonal revisions.
January is the weakest month seasonally, so we looked at the raw data to see if there was much exaggeration due to the low seasonal factors. Apparently not: the second graph here highlights that the greatest relative weakness in the existing home market was actually last summer, as the normal June seasonal peak was down 10.2% from June of the year before and the worst comparison was a whopping 16% in September. Now, the year-to-year loss is much smaller, just 2.7%.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070227e.jpg" width="353">
By region, sales remain &quot;best&quot; in the Northeast, where they are running 5.2% ahead of last year; they were flat with December after seasonal adjustment. Sales are also up on the year in the Midwest, 1.3%, and they gained 4.8% seasonally adjusted from December. In the South, volume is still down from last year, by 4.5%, but yearly comparisons show less weakness in prior months, so the whole down-cycle is more saucer-shaped there. January volume was up 2% from December. The far West is also still down, with January 9.4% below a year ago. They are less bad off now, though, than the 20%-plus plunge experienced back in the summer and January is actually up 5.6% from December.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070227f.jpg" width="353">
Home prices remain soft. The national median price was $210, 600, off 3.1% from a year ago. Prices in each region were also down, with the Midwest and the West showing the greatest softness, off 3.5% and 4.6% respectively. Those in the Northeast and the South were down just 1.2% and 1.7%. So market conditions in the West are still contracting, with both prices and volume down markedly from January 2006. Lower prices elsewhere might be seen as helping sales volumes stabilize or even turn upward.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Existing Home Sales,&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2007</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Yr/Yr% Chg (NSA)</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total, 000s, SA</td>
<td>6,460</td>
<td>6,270</td>
<td>6,250</td>
<td>-2.7%</td>
<td>6,510</td>
<td>7,075</td>
<td>6,727</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<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>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Median Price, NSA</td>
<td>$210,600</td>
<td>$221,600</td>
<td>$217,300</td>
<td>-3.1%</td>
<td>$222,175</td>
<td>$218,083</td>
<td>$193,167</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Existing home sales had a surprising gain in January, rising 3.0% to 6.46 million (SAAR), the largest volume since June. Market forecasts called for an increase of just 0.5% or so. Note that all these data have undergone annual [...]

Existing Home Sales Show Monthly Gain, Less Year/Year Weakness

<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/070227a.jpg" width="353">
New orders for durable goods dropped 7.8% in January, following a downwardly revised 2.8% gain in December (originally 3.1%). Consensus expectations called for about a 3% fall, which would have basically reversed the December increase.
The drop was spread across several of the categories included in this &quot;advance&quot; report. The largest was in aircraft, both nondefense and defense. These had been up sharply in both November and December, so the decline now would not have been surprising. Motor vehicles, similarly, had been up three months running, and the January decrease, 5.1%, offset almost exactly their December rise of 5.3%. Total orders less transportation equipment were off 3.1% after December&#39;s 2.3% increase. Looking at the accompanying graph, we can&#39;t help but notice the developing downtrend in this series; at $147.7 billion in January, these orders are 4.2% below their peak last June. This comparison is less meaningful for total orders, since they swing so widely from month to month.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070227b.jpg" width="353">
Nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft also fell, by 6.0%. This included machinery, computers and communications equipment. Correspondingly, orders for primary metals were down, although those for fabricated metal products rose. The other sector with an increase was electrical equipment, appliances and components. Also, despite the fall in orders for defense aircraft and parts, those for total defense capital goods were up 10.7%.
Durable goods shipments continued their recent pattern of modest monthly increases, rising 0.2%, after 0.5% in December and 0.3% in November. Excluding transportation, shipments were up 0.9%, after declines of 0.4% and 0.3%, respectively in the two preceding months.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070227c.jpg" width="353">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;MS Mincho&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:
JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Inventories rose 0.3% but were unchanged less transportation equipment. The inventory/shipments ratio was up ever so slightly from 1.407 to 1.408, while excluding transportation, it went down from 1.490 to 1.477. These latest values compare [unfavorably] with annual averages in 2006 of 1.356 for total durables and 1.417 excluding transportation.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Durable Goods, &nbsp;SA, % Chg</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2007</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Yr/Yr</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>-7.8</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>9.0</td>
<td>6.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Ex Transportation</td>
<td>-3.1</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>9.4</td>
<td>7.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Nondefense Capital Goods</td>
<td>-19.9</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>9.8</td>
<td>21.4</td>
<td>5.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Ex Aircraft</td>
<td>-6.0</td>
<td>3.6</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>9.3</td>
<td>12.3</td>
<td>2.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

New orders for durable goods dropped 7.8% in January, following a downwardly revised 2.8% gain in December (originally 3.1%). Consensus expectations called for about a 3% fall, which would have basically reversed the December [...]

January Durable Goods Orders Fall, Giving Up Late 2006 Gains

<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/070227a.jpg" width="353">
New orders for durable goods dropped 7.8% in January, following a downwardly revised 2.8% gain in December (originally 3.1%). Consensus expectations called for about a 3% fall, which would have basically reversed the December increase.
The drop was spread across several of the categories included in this &quot;advance&quot; report. The largest was in aircraft, both nondefense and defense. These had been up sharply in both November and December, so the decline now would not have been surprising. Motor vehicles, similarly, had been up three months running, and the January decrease, 5.1%, offset almost exactly their December rise of 5.3%. Total orders less transportation equipment were off 3.1% after December&#39;s 2.3% increase. Looking at the accompanying graph, we can&#39;t help but notice the developing downtrend in this series; at $147.7 billion in January, these orders are 4.2% below their peak last June. This comparison is less meaningful for total orders, since they swing so widely from month to month.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070227b.jpg" width="353">
Nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft also fell, by 6.0%. This included machinery, computers and communications equipment. Correspondingly, orders for primary metals were down, although those for fabricated metal products rose. The other sector with an increase was electrical equipment, appliances and components. Also, despite the fall in orders for defense aircraft and parts, those for total defense capital goods were up 10.7%.
Durable goods shipments continued their recent pattern of modest monthly increases, rising 0.2%, after 0.5% in December and 0.3% in November. Excluding transportation, shipments were up 0.9%, after declines of 0.4% and 0.3%, respectively in the two preceding months.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070227c.jpg" width="353">
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;MS Mincho&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:
JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Inventories rose 0.3% but were unchanged less transportation equipment. The inventory/shipments ratio was up ever so slightly from 1.407 to 1.408, while excluding transportation, it went down from 1.490 to 1.477. These latest values compare [unfavorably] with annual averages in 2006 of 1.356 for total durables and 1.417 excluding transportation.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Durable Goods, &nbsp;SA, % Chg</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2007</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Yr/Yr</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>-7.8</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>9.0</td>
<td>6.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Ex Transportation</td>
<td>-3.1</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>9.4</td>
<td>7.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Nondefense Capital Goods</td>
<td>-19.9</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>9.8</td>
<td>21.4</td>
<td>5.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Ex Aircraft</td>
<td>-6.0</td>
<td>3.6</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>9.3</td>
<td>12.3</td>
<td>2.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Existing Home Sales Show Monthly Gain, Less Year/Year Weakness 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> February 27, 2007


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070227d.jpg" width="353">
Existing home sales had a surprising gain in January, rising 3.0% to 6.46 million (SAAR), the largest volume since June. Market forecasts called for an increase of just 0.5% or so. Note that all these data have undergone annual seasonal revisions.
January is the weakest month seasonally, so we looked at the raw data to see if there was much exaggeration due to the low seasonal factors. Apparently not: the second graph here highlights that the greatest relative weakness in the existing home market was actually last summer, as the normal June seasonal peak was down 10.2% from June of the year before and the worst comparison was a whopping 16% in September. Now, the year-to-year loss is much smaller, just 2.7%.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070227e.jpg" width="353">
By region, sales remain &quot;best&quot; in the Northeast, where they are running 5.2% ahead of last year; they were flat with December after seasonal adjustment. Sales are also up on the year in the Midwest, 1.3%, and they gained 4.8% seasonally adjusted from December. In the South, volume is still down from last year, by 4.5%, but yearly comparisons show less weakness in prior months, so the whole down-cycle is more saucer-shaped there. January volume was up 2% from December. The far West is also still down, with January 9.4% below a year ago. They are less bad off now, though, than the 20%-plus plunge experienced back in the summer and January is actually up 5.6% from December.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070227f.jpg" width="353">
Home prices remain soft. The national median price was $210, 600, off 3.1% from a year ago. Prices in each region were also down, with the Midwest and the West showing the greatest softness, off 3.5% and 4.6% respectively. Those in the Northeast and the South were down just 1.2% and 1.7%. So market conditions in the West are still contracting, with both prices and volume down markedly from January 2006. Lower prices elsewhere might be seen as helping sales volumes stabilize or even turn upward.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Existing Home Sales,&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2007</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Yr/Yr% Chg (NSA)</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total, 000s, SA</td>
<td>6,460</td>
<td>6,270</td>
<td>6,250</td>
<td>-2.7%</td>
<td>6,510</td>
<td>7,075</td>
<td>6,727</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<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>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Median Price, NSA</td>
<td>$210,600</td>
<td>$221,600</td>
<td>$217,300</td>
<td>-3.1%</td>
<td>$222,175</td>
<td>$218,083</td>
<td>$193,167</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Taiwan and Hong Kong Foreign Trade 
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> February 27, 2007


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070227g.jpg" width="353">
Taiwan and Hong Kong have recently released trade data that may be found in the Haver data base EMERGEPR. The data for Taiwan are shown in millions of U. S. dollars while those for Hong Kong are shown in millions of HK dollars with the exception of total exports, imports and balance.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070227h.jpg" width="353">
Hong Kong traditionally runs a deficit on its trade in goods while Taiwan runs a surplus as can be seen in the first chart.
Although Hong Kong has a population that is less than one third of that of Taiwan&#39; 23 million, its total exports in 2006 were $317 billion compared with $224 billion for Taiwan and its imports were $334 billion compared with $2020 billion for Taiwan. Hong Kong imports unfinished goods, finishes them and re-exports them. It this re-export trade that accounts for Hong Kong&#39;s greater trading activity relative to that of Taiwan. The second chart shows how Hong Kong&#39;s re-exports have grown over the past ten years while domestic export have fallen.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070227i.jpg" width="353">
Most of Hong Kong&#39;s import and re-export trade is with China. The third chart shows Hong Kong&#39;s imports from China and Hong Kong&#39;s re-exports to China.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">TRADE IN GOODS &nbsp;TAIWAN &amp; HONG KONG&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 06</th>
<th scope="col">3Q 06</th>
<th scope="col">4Q 05</th>
<th scope="col">Q/Q %</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 class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Taiwan (Bil. US$)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Exports</td>
<td>19.8</td>
<td>19.6</td>
<td>16.8</td>
<td>1.34</td>
<td>17.88</td>
<td>224.0</td>
<td>198.7</td>
<td>174.0#</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Imports</td>
<td>18.0</td>
<td>16.7</td>
<td>14.5</td>
<td>7.66</td>
<td>23.87</td>
<td>202.8</td>
<td>182.6</td>
<td>167.8#</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"> &nbsp;Balance </td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>-1.1*</td>
<td>-0.5*</td>
<td>21.2</td>
<td>15.8</td>
<td>6.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Hong Kong (Bil. US$)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Exports</td>
<td>26.6</td>
<td>27.6</td>
<td>24.5</td>
<td>-3.71</td>
<td>8.51</td>
<td>316.8</td>
<td>289.5</td>
<td>256.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Imports</td>
<td>27.2</td>
<td>30.3</td>
<td>23.9</td>
<td>-10.36</td>
<td>13.42</td>
<td>334.7</td>
<td>300.0</td>
<td>271.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"> &nbsp;Balance </td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>2.1*</td>
<td>-1.2*</td>
<td>-17.9</td>
<td>-10.4</td>
<td>-12.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">HK Imports from China (Bil. HK$)</td>
<td>98.5</td>
<td>109.9</td>
<td>86.9</td>
<td>-10..38</td>
<td>13.36</td>
<td>1193.7</td>
<td>1050.4</td>
<td>919</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">HK Re-exports to China</td>
<td>64.7</td>
<td>100.1</td>
<td>77.1</td>
<td>-5.32</td>
<td>22.89</td>
<td>1116.1</td>
<td>968.4</td>
<td>851.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"> HK Domestic Exports </td>
<td>8.4</td>
<td>8.5</td>
<td>13.1</td>
<td>-1.07</td>
<td>-35.79</td>
<td>134.7</td>
<td>136.1</td>
<td>126.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"> HK Re-Exports </td>
<td>199.0</td>
<td>206.2</td>
<td>176.9</td>
<td>-3.48</td>
<td>12.49</td>
<td>2326.5</td>
<td>2115.1</td>
<td>1894.5</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/070226a.jpg" width="353">
The Socialist Republic of Vietnam released data on industrial production today. The data are not seasonally adjusted and are in terms of 1994 Dongs. The dong is the unit of currency in Vietnam. At the end of January, the exchange rate was 16,035.5 dongs to the U. S. dollar.
Total industrial production was 46,155 billion 1994 dongs in January, down 8.7% from December, 2006, but 23.8% above January, 2006. 31% was produced by the state sector of the economy, 31%, by the non state sector and 38% by the foreign investment sector. Although we have only two years of data, it does appear that production in the non state and foreign investment sectors are growing at the expense of production by the state sector.The year to year change in state production in January was 11.1%, while the year to year changes in the non state and foreign investment production were respectively, 32.6% and 27.0%. The first chart compares industrial production produced in the state sector with that produced by the non state and the foreign investment sectors combined.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070226b.jpg" width="353">
Data were also released on exports and imports. For the two years that data are available Vietnam has been running a deficit on trade in goods. The deficit has declined as can be seen in the second chart that shows imports and exports. Moreover, with the growth in the production in the foreign investment most of which is designed for export, the balance of trade in goods may continue to improve. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">VIETNAM&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jan&nbsp; 07</th>
<th scope="col">Dec&nbsp; 06</th>
<th scope="col">Jan&nbsp; 06</th>
<th scope="col">M/M %</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Industrial Production &nbsp;(Bil. 1994 Dongs)</td>
<td>46155</td>
<td>50535</td>
<td>37297</td>
<td>-8.67</td>
<td>23.78</td>
<td>43835</td>
<td>38725</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; State</td>
<td>12963</td>
<td>15097</td>
<td>11671</td>
<td>-14.14</td>
<td>11.07</td>
<td>13584</td>
<td>12346</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non State</td>
<td>15699</td>
<td>17366</td>
<td>11837</td>
<td>-9.60</td>
<td>32.63</td>
<td>13677</td>
<td>11918</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"> &nbsp; Foreign Direct Investment </td>
<td>17493</td>
<td>18071</td>
<td>13779</td>
<td>-3.20</td>
<td>26.95</td>
<td>16573</td>
<td>14461</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Foreign Trade Balance (Bil. US $)</td>
<td>-100</td>
<td>-500</td>
<td>-350</td>
<td>400*</td>
<td>250*</td>
<td>5430</td>
<td>5055</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Exports</td>
<td>3300</td>
<td>3500</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>-5.71</td>
<td>17.86</td>
<td>38920</td>
<td>31198</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Imports</td>
<td>3400</td>
<td>4000</td>
<td>3150</td>
<td>-15.00</td>
<td>7.94</td>
<td>44350</td>
<td>36252</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam released data on industrial production today. The data are not seasonally adjusted and are in terms of 1994 Dongs. The dong is the unit of currency in Vietnam. At the end of January, the exchange rate [...]

Less State and More Private Industrial Production in Vietnam

<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/070223a.jpg" width="353">
The number of mass layoff events was up 3.0% in January, according to BLS data reported this morning. These specific layoff incidents are called &quot;mass layoffs&quot; because they involve 50 or more initial claims for unemployment insurance. January&#39;s number, 1,237, was the highest since December 2005, and traces a very mild uptrend from a recent low of 1,073 in February 2006. At the same time, the total number of people filing associated unemployment insurance claims fell in January by 5.6% to 125,368, just 2.2% higher than the average for 2006 as a whole.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070223b.jpg" width="353">
The industrial distribution of these layoffs and unemployment insurance claims follows the recent evolution of other information about the economy. [Note that the data for individual industries are not seasonally adjusted.] For instance, the number of layoff events and the number of people are rising in the wood products industry, a development that would be expected as housing demand contracts. Perhaps also associated with this is a large number of events in the furniture manufacturing industry, the most in four years. The finance sector is also seeing more layoffs, but the absolute level of these remains low. However, not all relevant industries exhibit the expected trend: construction has not recently seen layoffs noticeably higher than the large numbers that usually occur in the winter, and construction payroll employment has held flat.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070223c.jpg" width="353">
The tenuous health of the US auto industry is evident in a rising number of layoff events in transportation equipment manufacturing; this was the largest in December and January since the comparable period of December 2001/January 2002. A related group, fabricated metal products, also shows a hint of upward drift.
In contrast, wholesale and retail trade evidence at least stable employment patterns. Both have among the smallest numbers of December and January layoffs in the 12-year history of these layoff data. Correspondingly, the retail trade sector payrolls have been basically flat for about 18 months, and wholesale trade payrolls are climbing steadily.
These mass layoff data are contained in Haver&#39;s flagship database, USECON. Data are also available by Census regions, divisions and states, including some industry detail for each. These are all carried in the REGIONAL database.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Mass Layoffs, SA</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2007</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2006</th>
Monthly Averages
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2006</td>
<td>2005</td>
<td>2004</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Number of Events</td>
<td>1,237</td>
<td>1,201</td>
<td>1,220</td>
<td>1,112</td>
<td>1,167</td>
<td>1,372</td>
<td>1,332</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims &nbsp; (Number Persons)</td>
<td>126,368</td>
<td>133,818</td>
<td>136,340</td>
<td>109,429</td>
<td>123,699</td>
<td>149,612</td>
<td>133,930</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The number of mass layoff events was up 3.0% in January, according to BLS data reported this morning. These specific layoff incidents are called "mass layoffs" because they involve 50 or more initial claims for unemployment insurance. [...]

Mass Layoff Events Increase in January, But the Number of People Involved Decreases

<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/070222e.jpg" width="353">
The Bank of Japan raised short-term interest rates by 25 basis points yesterday &quot;effective immediately&quot;. As seen in the first graph here, money markets began to factor this change into their trading last Friday, when the key policy target rate, the uncollateralized overnight call rate, moved up about 10 basis points from 0.260% to 0.362%. It stayed near there through the close of markets yesterday. Today, it moved on up, reaching 0.528% on a provisional basis; the Bank wants it to hover around 0.50%.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070222f.jpg" width="353">
The BoJ decision is based on two main forward-looking criteria: the Bank sees a reduction in uncertainty over the outlook for Japan&#39;s economy, and it is concerned that markets not get complacent about accommodative monetary policy.
As mentioned specifically in the Bank&#39;s policy statement, consumer spending in Japan had weakened last summer, but the reports last week of Q4 data show a distinct rebound. As we described here a week ago, total GDP was up 1.2% in Q4 (4.8% annual rate) following a mere 0.3% in Q3. Household consumption had fallen at a 4.3% rate in Q3 and came back at a 4.5% pace in Q4. All four major types of expenditure participated in the gain: durables, semi-durables, nondurables and services. The Bank was also <img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070222g.jpg" width="353"> reassured, it said, by reduced uncertainty abroad, especially in the US. Further, today, more evidence of rising demand abroad and its favorable impact for Japan came in the January trade data. Exports were up 3.3% from December, the largest monthly increase since the Spring of 2004. Sales to China were strongest on a year-over-year basis, but shipments to other Asian and Middle Eastern trading partners also showed notable growth.
These favorable demand developments are promoting gains in usage of resources in Japan, noted by the Bank as sources of price pressure &quot;over the longer term&quot;, precisely what concerns it most. As seen in the final graph, industrial capacity utilization in manufacturing reached 109.3 in December (2000=100), the highest since late 1991. Unemployment has steadied, hovering just above 4%. All of 2006 averaged 4.1%, the lowest yearly figure since 1998.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070222h.jpg" width="353">

</body>
</html>

The Bank of Japan raised short-term interest rates by 25 basis points yesterday "effective immediately". As seen in the first graph here, money markets began to factor this change into their trading last Friday, when the key policy [...]

Bank of Japan Raises Call Rate Target to 0.50%; Cites Demand Growth & High Industry Operating Rate

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

Considerably more monetary ease expected from US and UK as Japan tightens

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

PMIs show still-elevated but slowing US inflation

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. 

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

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

260428N.jpg

260428O.jpg

The Conference Board’s index of Consumer Confidence inched higher in April from an upwardly revised reading in March. The combined changes left the measure 1.1% higher than the preliminary tally in March. Despite the improvement, the index remained in the low end of the range for the current expansion. The index in April totaled 92.8, down from an average of 96.1 in 2025 and an annual cyclical high of 105.4 in 2023.

The Improvement in April reflected a pickup in the expectations component, which rose 1.7%. The current conditions component inched 0.2% lower. Overall views on current conditions slipped despite more favorable assessments of the labor market. The so-called measure of the jobs gap (share of respondents indicating that jobs are plentiful less the share saying that jobs are hard to get) rose 1.4 percentage points higher to 7.5%. The pickup reflected a drop in the share indicating that jobs are hard to get (down 1.5 percentage points to 19.8%). The share indicating that jobs are plentiful eased 0.1 percentage point to 27.3%.

Although expectations improved in April, from a long-term perspective they could be viewed as the more important factor restraining the headline measure of confidence. As shown in the left chart below, the expectations component of confidence shows considerably less volatility than the current conditions component does. The contrasting patterns suggest that individuals realize that the economy will undergo possibly sharp cyclical swings, but they expect conditions at some point to return to an underlying norm.

The current conditions index in the current cycle has indeed dropped noticeably, but it is still above the long run average (123.8 in April versus the average of approximately 108 from 1990 to 2025). The expectations component, as usual, has eased less than the current conditions component, but its shift has pushed the measure to the low end of its long-run range (72.2 in April versus an average of approximately 88).

Interestingly, concern about the labor market seems to be a factor affecting expectations. While current views on the labor market are favorable (plentiful less hard to get jobs gap of 7.5%), Individual are concerned about the future. The survey asks respondents if they expect more jobs or fewer jobs six months hence. The share indicating fewer jobs has moved well into the upper end of the historical range. Such observations in the past were typically seen only during recession (chart, below right). An unfavorable view on interest rates also seems to be playing a role in depressing the expectations component. More than 60% of respondents to the current survey expect higher interest rates 12 months from now.

The results from the Conference Board survey of consumers differ markedly from those of the University of Michigan Survey Research Center. The Michigan results show consumer sentiment at a record low, while the Conference Board index is only slightly below its long-run average. The difference most likely reflects the nature of the questions in the surveys. The Conference Board focuses on business and employment conditions, while Michigan emphasizes personal finances. The focus on finances, along with questions on inflation, probably picks up concerns about affordability.

The Consumer Confidence data are available in Haver’s **CBDB** database. The total indexes, which are indexed to 1985=100, appear in **USECON**, and market expectations are in **AS1REPNA**.

260428P.jpg

260428Q.jpg

- Expectations improved slightly in April, but are still subdued relative to norms.
- Moderately favorable view of current conditions.

Consumer Confidence: Modest Change in April

Winnie Tapasanun

260428J35.jpg

260428K35.jpg

U.S. house prices were essentially unchanged m/m in February after rises of 0.2% in January (+0.1% initially) and 0.3% in December (unrevised), according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) House Price Index. February marked the first flat reading since September following four consecutive m/m increases. The HPI was at 441.43 in February, up 14.8% from its August 2022 low of 384.59. The year-on-year growth rate eased to 1.7% in February—the lowest since March 2012—from 1.8% in January (+4.1% in February 2025), down from a high of 6.9% in February 2024 and well below a peak of 18.5% in February 2022.

By region, February FHFA house prices showed a mixed performance. House prices fell m/m in February (vs. January) in four of the nine census divisions. Declines were led by Mountain (-1.1% vs. +0.4%), followed by Pacific (-0.5% vs. +0.6%), West North Central (-0.4% vs. +0.3%), and Middle Atlantic (-0.1% vs. +0.3%). To the upside, house prices rose m/m in four census divisions in February (vs. January): South Atlantic (+0.6% vs. -0.2%), East South Central (+0.2% vs. +1.2%), New England (+0.2% vs. +0.6%), and West South Central (+0.2% vs. -0.3%). Meanwhile, house prices in East North Central were virtually unchanged m/m for the second successive month in February following seven straight m/m gains.

Year-on-year house prices continued to rise in February in most regions, except Mountain, Pacific, and West South Central. The y/y growth rate accelerated in February (vs. January) in only two of the nine census divisions: East South Central (+4.0% vs. +3.2%) and South Atlantic (+0.9% vs. +0.4%). Meanwhile, house price growth decelerated y/y in February (vs. January) in four regions: New England (+3.1% vs. +3.9%), West North Central (+3.1% vs. +3.6%), East North Central (+3.8% vs. +4.5%), and Middle Atlantic (+4.2% vs. +4.5%). To the downside, Mountain (-0.7% vs. 0.0%), Pacific (-0.4% vs. -0.3%), and West South Central (-0.1% vs. -0.4%) posted y/y declines in February.

The FHFA house price index is a weighted purchase-only index that measures average price changes in repeat sales of the same property. An associated quarterly index includes refinancing the same kind of properties. The indexes are based on transactions involving conforming conventional mortgages purchased or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Only mortgage transactions on single-family properties are included.

The FHFA data are available in Haver’s **USECON** database.

260428L35.jpg

260428M35.jpg

- February FHFA HPI 0.0% m/m; +1.7% y/y, lowest since Mar. ’12.
- House prices down m/m in four of nine census divisions, led by Mountain (-1.1%); up in four, driven by South Atlantic (+0.6%); flat in East North Central.
- House prices up y/y in six of nine regions, led by Middle Atlantic (+4.2%), but down in Mountain (-0.7%), Pacific (-0.4%), and West South Central (-0.1%).

U.S. FHFA House Prices Flat in February After Four Straight M/M Gains

Robert Brusca

260428E.jpg

Early PPI reports in the monetary union show collective pressures building over the past year, with newly emergent pressures popping up strongly in March.

The sequence of monthly inflation observations for these five early reporters in March shows that inflation pressure has not been clearly building but did jump up suddenly in March. In February, before the Iran war, the median monthly PPI gain was -0.5%. In March, that jumped to +3.9% (median month-to-month gain). Monthly pressure does not show steady gains anywhere except moderately in Germany. Finland shows deceleration in progress (!) even through—especially through—March, as its PPI in March fell by 5.3%. But the whole Finish pattern is somewhat upside down, with prices up month-to-month by 6.2% in January and 2.9% in February. It is not a trend that is easy to understand.

However, the March monthly gains are strong enough to drive sequential inflation higher from 12-months, to 6-months, to 3-months across all early-reporting countries. Even the German ex-energy index shows acceleration on that profile.

On a year-on-year basis, two of the early reporters have PPI inflation below 2%. Finland has 12-month PPI inflation at 2.1%, but Italy and Spain have inflation much higher, up by 3.4% over 12 months in Spain and by 5.6% in Italy.

The PPI has been very well-behaved in the last few years. Looking at 12-month changes for the year ended in March, the median change for this group in 2025 was -0.1%, compared to -4.6% in 2024.

The chart shows the PPI flared sharply in 2021 and 2022, then fell quickly into line in 2023. Clearly, the inflation tune now is being called by oil prices, the same as for that spike prices in 2022 and 2023.

The hope is that the oil price bump up will not be as long-lived, that the war will end soon, with the Strait of Hormuz reopened, and that oil prices—and other inflation pressures—will sink back to prerevision norms relatively quickly. That could happen, but so could other outcomes so markets remain wary. One problem this time is the destruction of oil facilities and the shutting of oil fields that could cause high prices to linger longer.

260428.jpg

**A new dynamic**
However, there is now a new dynamic with the UAE leaving OPEC. OPEC has been a vehicle to harness common behavior to control oil prices mostly to keep them higher. While undermining OPEC (UAE pumps about 13% of OPEC capacity) at a time the U.S. oil prowess has risen, this defection will make it much harder for OPEC to control prices. When countries are not bound together, the incentive is for countries to cheat on their production quota. In a cartel arrangement, when many cheat, the output reduction does not hold, and oil prices fall. A cartel arrangement allows for supply control and reduction which raises prices. But once prices are up, each member has an individual incentive to cheat—to sell more than his quota share of oil at the higher price. But that undermines the cartel. So, this move, this exit of UAE from the cartel, will create instability in the OPEC by moving more production outside the OPEC framework, beyond its control. Unless the Saudis are willing to be the ‘swing man’ and cut back their output to keep prices on target—something the Saudis have been increasingly unwilling to do—OPEC will be in less control.

EMU PPIs Show Instant Pressure

Tian Yong Woon

In this week’s Letter, we cover the latest developments and implications of the Middle East conflict for Asia, while also making space for other important themes, including artificial intelligence (AI). The Middle East conflict remains in a no deal state coming out of the weekend, though some early Monday optimism emerged in Asian markets following Iran’s reported offer to reopen the Strait of Hormuz (chart 1). Nonetheless, as the Strait closure drags on, so too do the fiscal costs of domestic fossil fuel subsidies across Asia, which have been shown to move closely with crude oil prices (chart 2). While such measures offer direct relief by cushioning household energy costs, they remain difficult to sustain over the long haul.

Over the week, we also saw a further fraying in regional monetary policy trends, with the Philippines hiking its policy rate for the first time in about two years amid inflation concerns, while Indonesia stood pat on rates (chart 3). Investor attention is likely to remain fixed on monetary policy this week, with the Bank of Japan due to decide on policy. Expectations for an April hike have faded amid the persistent Middle East conflict, though yen weakness continues to present a source of concern (chart 4). The week also brings China’s latest PMI readings (chart 5), adding to the recent run of hard data accompanying the Q1 GDP release.

Beyond the Middle East conflict, the evolution of AI continues to demand close attention. Before geopolitical tensions took centre stage, AI was the dominant market narrative — and that enthusiasm has hardly faded. If anything, recent developments suggest the story is broadening: use cases are expanding, scalability is improving, and access is widening beyond large corporates to the mass market — increasingly spilling into the realm of physical AI. It may well be this persistent wave of optimism that is helping to underpin equity valuations, even as the geopolitical backdrop darkens (chart 6).

**The Middle East conflict**
About two months in, we remain stuck in the limbo of the US-Iran conflict, which has left the Strait of Hormuz largely closed and much of the world starved of the critical oil flows needed to power the global economy. The back and forth between the US and Iran has persisted in recent weeks, with both sides again failing to reach a peace deal over the weekend, though Monday’s news of Iran offering to reopen the Strait has revived some hope in markets. In truth, commodity and market valuations do not hinge so much on a peace deal itself, but rather on the resumption of oil flows through the Strait, something that could materialise even in the absence of a formal deal, though any agreement that includes and credibly delivers such a reopening would likely be warmly received by markets. Until then, market gyrations are likely to persist, with prices fluctuating in response to each new snippet of news. And until then, the world will continue both to be starved of, while gradually adapting to, the drip feed of oil flows emerging from the Strait.

260427T1.jpg

**The fiscal costs of the Middle East conflict**
As the Middle East conflict drags on, so too does the strain on fiscal resources across parts of Asia, as the costs of energy-related subsidy programmes continue to mount. While such programmes have an immediate, direct, and tangible impact in shielding households from surging energy costs, they are far from sustainable, particularly if oil prices remain well above targeted levels or stay elevated for an extended period. As chart 2 illustrates, the costs of these explicit subsidy programmes tend to rise closely with crude oil prices, as seen in India and Indonesia. Other measures adopted elsewhere, such as drawing down oil reserves, may be less fiscally costly, but are similarly difficult to sustain indefinitely. In both respects, the clock is ticking, and the world continues to hold its breath as the conflict drags on.

260427T2.jpg

**The latest central bank responses to the conflict**
Over the past week, Asia saw two central bank decisions. The Philippines’ (BSP) opted to deliver its first rate hike in about two years, while Indonesia’s (BI) chose to stand pat on policy rates and instead committed to stepped up FX intervention (chart 3). This latest round of decisions points to a further fraying of what had been a broad regional monetary policy consensus, namely that central banks would delay additional easing while maintaining a high bar for outright tightening. Domestic considerations, however, remain paramount. In the Philippines’ case, the central bank has moved to rein in inflation, which is already showing notable signs of price pass through stemming from disruptions linked to the Strait of Hormuz. That said, BSP is not the first in the region to buck the reluctance to tighten. Singapore’s central bank had already tightened policy in mid-April, albeit through its own distinct framework, given its use of the exchange rate rather than policy rates as the primary channel for monetary policy.

260427T3.jpg

**The week ahead**
Looking to the week ahead, a major central bank decision looms in Japan. Market expectations for the Bank of Japan to deliver a rate hike at its April meeting have ebbed amid the persistence of the Middle East conflict, to which Japan remains particularly vulnerable given its reliance on oil imports flowing through the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, inflation in Japan has yet to become a major concern, with recent readings having picked up but not yet entering troubling territory. One potential source of concern, however, lies with the Japanese yen, which has remained on a weakening trend since early last year (chart 4). That depreciation has been one of the key arguments underpinning calls for further rate hikes.

260427T4.jpg

The week also brings China’s latest PMIs into focus. March saw a divergence between China’s official PMI readings, which improved, and the unofficial readings from RatingDog, which instead pulled back. Nonetheless, both official and unofficial gauges remained in expansionary territory (chart 5), with investors now watching closely to see whether that resilience can be sustained amid ongoing stresses from the Middle East, or whether offsetting drivers can continue to keep Chinese business sentiment and prospects buoyant.

260427T5.jpg

**Beyond the strait**
Moving beyond the Middle East conflict, a whole host of developments continue to unfold globally, many of which have in fact helped offset some of the pessimism wrought by the Strait’s chokehold. One such development is artificial intelligence (AI), which had dominated headlines before the outbreak of the conflict and continues to advance at breakneck pace. AI capabilities are still rapidly evolving, while practical applications, such as physical AI embodied in humanoid robots, are beginning to show broader and stronger use cases. Production of such robots is also becoming increasingly scalable and within reach not just for industrial complexes and healthcare, but for the mass market as well. It is perhaps growing optimism around these prospects that has helped keep equity valuations buoyant, even in the face of the festering conflict in the Middle East. Moreover, while concerns over AI-driven job displacement persist, new opportunities are emerging as well, particularly for AI adopters, with a growing share of job postings in Western economies increasingly referencing AI-related skills, as shown in chart 6.

260427T6.jpg

Asia

Economic Letter from Asia: Not Just About the Strait

260427E.jpg

**The Distributive Trades Survey**

The U.K. Distributive Trades Survey for April 2026 and the look-ahead expectation readings for May paint an extremely soured outlook for the U.K. economy.

**Retail ranking**: Surveys for retail sales compared to a year ago, orders compared to a year ago, and sales evaluated for the time of year all have rankings near zero, which is the worst result on this timeline. This zero distinction applies to retail sales compared to a year ago. The best ranking is 11.6%; that is for sales evaluated for the time of year. Orders compared to a year ago have a 4.2 percentile standing. The stock-to-sales ratio—which is a completely different concept—shows that the inventory-to-sales ratio has a 29.9 percentile standing.

**Retail diffusion**: The raw April diffusion readings (up minus down diffusion) show that sales compared to a year ago slipped to a reading of -68 in April from -52 in March. Orders fell to -46 in April from -26 in March. Sales evaluated for the time of year fell to -32 April from -23 in March. All three measures weakened, and all three weakened decisively, resulting in extremely weak rankings. All of the rankings are executed on data back to 2002.

**Expectations for retailing**: The expectations readings for May show slippage again across all three metrics: expected sales compared to a year ago, expected orders compared to a year ago, and expected sales for the time of year. Expected sales compared to a year ago fell to -60 in May from -49 in April. Orders compared to a year ago declined to -45 in May from -30 in April, and sales for the time of year slipped to -43 from -19. In May, these readings have rankings in a 0.4 percentile standing for sales compared to a year ago, a 1.8 percentile standing for sales evaluated relative to the time of year, and a 4.6 percentile standing for orders compared to a year ago. These two panels on current and expected retail sales volumes are just simply terrible: weak monthly, weak in ranking terms, and showing slipping momentum.

The distributor trade series also provides data on the wholesale sector. While the wholesale sector is not quite as beat up as the retail sector, it's still extremely weak. There is no cause for any kind of hope that things are getting better based on wholesaling trends.

**Wholesaling**: The wholesale survey for sales compared to a year ago edged lower to -32 in April from -31 in March. Orders compared to a year ago remained at a reading of -41 in April. Sales evaluated for the time of year improved to a reading of -20 in April from -39 in March—a significant step up, but still very weak. The percentile standings for these three categories show sales compared to a year ago at the 8.8 percentile, orders compared to a year ago at the 5.6 percentile, and sales evaluated for the time of year at the 14.8 percentile.

**Wholesale Expectations**: The look-ahead observations, which provide expectations for wholesaling in May, show a similar constellation of readings, with sales compared to a year ago falling to -37 in May from -27 in April and orders compared to a year ago falling to -42 from -38, while sales evaluated for the time of year improved to  16 from  37. That category for wholesale sales improved both in April in real time and in May for expectations; however, it continues to have a very weak percentile standing, at the 17.9 percentile in May, while sales for a year ago have a 6.7 percentile standing and orders for a year ago have a 6.0 percentile standing.

260427.jpg

While some of the global PMI data have improved, these survey data for the U.K. are particularly dour. The war in Ukraine drags on, and there's a new conflict in Iran that has shut the Strait of Hormuz, creating energy problems for much of Europe. More broadly, supply chains have been harmed. In addition, the U.K. is undergoing a bout of political instability, as its Prime Minister is under pressure and a good deal of political uncertainty is being worsened by deteriorating economic performance.

Both the U.K. and the European Monetary Union had been showing some progress on inflation until the Iran war hit. Now, as the oil prices are up so sharply, headline inflation is going to be worse everywhere and there will probably be a bit more attention directed to the core inflation rate. However, the U.K. has had inflation too hot for a while, and it has failed to settle down. At its last meeting, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee warned that if the war was still ongoing at the next meeting, there would be a risk of a rate hike. So, it would seem that a rate hike is going to be in play unless the economy falls off a cliff first, which, based on the distributive trades data, is also something that could happen. The U.K. economy appears to be on very unsound footing, and what happens next is just about anybody's guess.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

Existing Home Sales Show Monthly Gain, Less Year/Year Weakness

January Durable Goods Orders Fall, Giving Up Late 2006 Gains

January Durable Goods Orders Fall, Giving Up Late 2006 Gains

Less State and More Private Industrial Production in Vietnam

Less State and More Private Industrial Production in Vietnam

Mass Layoff Events Increase in January, But the Number of People Involved Decreases

Mass Layoff Events Increase in January, But the Number of People Involved Decreases

Bank of Japan Raises Call Rate Target to 0.50%; Cites Demand Growth & High Industry Operating Rate