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/060524c.jpg" width="353">
New home sales during April again posted an unexpected gain. The 4.9% m/m increase to 1.198 million (SAAR) followed a revised 12.0% rise during March which was revised down slightly. The increased contrasted to Consensus expectations for 1.15M sales.
The latest sales level was 12.4% below last July&#39;s peak and sales so far this year were 11.5% below the 2005 average.
April sales in the Northeast rose 8.2% (-33.3% y/y) and in the West sales rose 2.0% (-12.6% y/y). Sales down South (+6.7% y/y) were notably strong with a 7.8% m/m gain but sales in the Midwest fell 1.1% (-16.9% y/y).<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060524d.jpg" width="353">
The number of homes for sale surged for the second month by 2.4% (27.0% y/y). Again in the Northeast the number of homes for sale jumped, by 1.9% (63.6% y/y).
The median sales price of a new home recovered 2.8% (0.9% y/y) following a 6.2% March decline.

<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/@E9/@E904/@E904.HTM">U.S. New Homes</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Sales (AR, 000&#39;s)</td>
<td>1,198</td>
<td>1,142</td>
<td>-5.7%</td>
<td>1,280</td>
<td>1,201</td>
<td>1,091</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Median Price (NSA)</td>
<td>$238,500</td>
<td>$232,000</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>$234,208</td>
<td>$217,817</td>
<td>$191,383</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

New home sales during April again posted an unexpected gain. The 4.9% m/m increase to 1.198 million (SAAR) followed a revised 12.0% rise during March which was revised down slightly. The increased contrasted to Consensus expectations [...]

New Home Sales Again Rose Unexpectedly

<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/060524a.jpg" width="353">
New orders for durable goods fell 4.8% last month, giving back much of the upwardly revised 6.6% March increase. Nevertheless, durable orders in April remained up 11.3% versus last year and for the first four months of this year orders also were 11.2% ahead of 2005. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.5% April decline.
During the last ten years there has been a 69% correlation between the y/y change in durable goods orders and the change in output of durable goods.
A 32.2% (+99.5% y/y) drop in orders for nondefense aircraft &amp; parts led last month&#39;s decline in total orders. In addition, new orders for motor vehicles &amp; parts dropped 1.6% (+2.1% y/y).
Less the transportation sector altogether, durable goods orders fell 1.1% and gave back a piece of the upwardly revised March gain.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060524b.jpg" width="353">
Orders for computers &amp; electronic products gave back all of an upwardly revised March gain and fell 10.4% (+10.0% y/y). Machinery orders, however, fell just 0.2% (+12.1% y/y) after a 5.7% April increase that was little revised. Electrical equipment orders rose for the first month in three, up 5.2% (15.7% y/y), while orders for primary metals jumped 3.2% (16.6% y/y).
Orders for nondefense capital goods gave back half of the prior month&#39;s surge with a 6.0% drop while orders less aircraft fell 1.7% but remained 9.4% ahead of the year ago level. During the last ten years there has been an 86% correlation between the y/y change in capital goods orders less aircraft and the y/y change in business fixed investment in equipment &amp; software from the GDP accounts.
Shipments of durable goods fell 0.9% (+6.0% y/y) following two months of 0.3% gain. Less the transportation sector shipments fell 0.1% (+8.1% y/y) for the second consecutive month. During the last ten years there has been an 82% correlation between the y/y change in durable goods shipments and the change in industrial production of durable goods.
Order backlogs jumped 1.5% (23.0% y/y), again reflecting a surge in nondefense aircraft &amp; parts (75.1% y/y). Less transportation backlogs were strong again and posted a 1.1% (13.7% y/y) rise. The ratio of backlogs to shipments outside of transportation jumped to the highest level in two years.
Durable inventories increased 0.8% (2.9% y/y). Less transportation inventories also rose 0.8% (3.3% y/y) and the inventory to sales ratio outside of the transportation sector rose for the second month.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED01/@ED0101/@ED0101.HTM">NAICS Classification</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Durable Goods Orders</td>
<td>-4.8%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>11.3%</td>
<td>9.0%</td>
<td>6.4%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding Transportation</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>10.3%</td>
<td>9.4%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Nondefense Capital Goods</td>
<td>-6.0%</td>
<td>11.9%</td>
<td>18.6%</td>
<td>21.4%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>-3.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Excluding Aircraft</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>9.4%</td>
<td>12.3%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

New orders for durable goods fell 4.8% last month, giving back much of the upwardly revised 6.6% March increase. Nevertheless, durable orders in April remained up 11.3% versus last year and for the first four months of this year [...]

New Orders for U.S. Durable Goods Fell

<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/060524a.jpg" width="353">
New orders for durable goods fell 4.8% last month, giving back much of the upwardly revised 6.6% March increase. Nevertheless, durable orders in April remained up 11.3% versus last year and for the first four months of this year orders also were 11.2% ahead of 2005. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.5% April decline.
During the last ten years there has been a 69% correlation between the y/y change in durable goods orders and the change in output of durable goods.
A 32.2% (+99.5% y/y) drop in orders for nondefense aircraft &amp; parts led last month&#39;s decline in total orders. In addition, new orders for motor vehicles &amp; parts dropped 1.6% (+2.1% y/y).
Less the transportation sector altogether, durable goods orders fell 1.1% and gave back a piece of the upwardly revised March gain.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060524b.jpg" width="353">
Orders for computers &amp; electronic products gave back all of an upwardly revised March gain and fell 10.4% (+10.0% y/y). Machinery orders, however, fell just 0.2% (+12.1% y/y) after a 5.7% April increase that was little revised. Electrical equipment orders rose for the first month in three, up 5.2% (15.7% y/y), while orders for primary metals jumped 3.2% (16.6% y/y).
Orders for nondefense capital goods gave back half of the prior month&#39;s surge with a 6.0% drop while orders less aircraft fell 1.7% but remained 9.4% ahead of the year ago level. During the last ten years there has been an 86% correlation between the y/y change in capital goods orders less aircraft and the y/y change in business fixed investment in equipment &amp; software from the GDP accounts.
Shipments of durable goods fell 0.9% (+6.0% y/y) following two months of 0.3% gain. Less the transportation sector shipments fell 0.1% (+8.1% y/y) for the second consecutive month. During the last ten years there has been an 82% correlation between the y/y change in durable goods shipments and the change in industrial production of durable goods.
Order backlogs jumped 1.5% (23.0% y/y), again reflecting a surge in nondefense aircraft &amp; parts (75.1% y/y). Less transportation backlogs were strong again and posted a 1.1% (13.7% y/y) rise. The ratio of backlogs to shipments outside of transportation jumped to the highest level in two years.
Durable inventories increased 0.8% (2.9% y/y). Less transportation inventories also rose 0.8% (3.3% y/y) and the inventory to sales ratio outside of the transportation sector rose for the second month.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED01/@ED0101/@ED0101.HTM">NAICS Classification</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Durable Goods Orders</td>
<td>-4.8%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>11.3%</td>
<td>9.0%</td>
<td>6.4%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding Transportation</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>10.3%</td>
<td>9.4%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Nondefense Capital Goods</td>
<td>-6.0%</td>
<td>11.9%</td>
<td>18.6%</td>
<td>21.4%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>-3.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Excluding Aircraft</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>9.4%</td>
<td>12.3%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
New Home Sales Again Rose Unexpectedly 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> May 24, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060524c.jpg" width="353">
New home sales during April again posted an unexpected gain. The 4.9% m/m increase to 1.198 million (SAAR) followed a revised 12.0% rise during March which was revised down slightly. The increased contrasted to Consensus expectations for 1.15M sales.
The latest sales level was 12.4% below last July&#39;s peak and sales so far this year were 11.5% below the 2005 average.
April sales in the Northeast rose 8.2% (-33.3% y/y) and in the West sales rose 2.0% (-12.6% y/y). Sales down South (+6.7% y/y) were notably strong with a 7.8% m/m gain but sales in the Midwest fell 1.1% (-16.9% y/y).<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060524d.jpg" width="353">
The number of homes for sale surged for the second month by 2.4% (27.0% y/y). Again in the Northeast the number of homes for sale jumped, by 1.9% (63.6% y/y).
The median sales price of a new home recovered 2.8% (0.9% y/y) following a 6.2% March decline.

<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/@E9/@E904/@E904.HTM">U.S. New Homes</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Sales (AR, 000&#39;s)</td>
<td>1,198</td>
<td>1,142</td>
<td>-5.7%</td>
<td>1,280</td>
<td>1,201</td>
<td>1,091</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Median Price (NSA)</td>
<td>$238,500</td>
<td>$232,000</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>$234,208</td>
<td>$217,817</td>
<td>$191,383</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Mortgage Applications Recovered 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> May 24, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060524e.jpg" width="353">
The total number of mortgage applications fell a hard 6.0% last week and pulled the average level in May 1.0% below April.
Purchase applications cratered 7.1% w/w but in May remained 0.3% ahead of April which rose 1.1% versus March.
During the last ten years there has been a negative 80% correlation between the interest rate level on 30-year financing and purchase applications while during those years there has been a 54% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing single family home sales.
Applications to refinance reversed about half of the prior week&#39;s rise with a 4.3% decline. The May level is 2.8% below the April average which fell 4.1% from March.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage retraced all of the prior week&#39;s increase and fell back to 6.84% while the rate on 15-year financing fell to 6.52%. Rates have risen roughly 50 basis points since year end 2005. Interest rates on 15 and 30 year mortgages are closely correlated (&gt;90%) with the rate on 10 year Treasury securities and during the last ten years there has been a (negative) 82% correlation between purchase applications and the effective rate on a 30-Year mortgage.
The Mortgage Bankers Association surveys between 20 to 35 of the top lenders in the U.S. housing industry to derive its refinance, purchase and market indexes. The weekly survey accounts for more than 40% of all applications processed each week by mortgage lenders. Visit the Mortgage Bankers Association site <a href="http://www.mbaa.org">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/SURVEYW/@S5/@S5.HTM">MBA Mortgage Applications (3/16/90=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">05/19/06</th>
<th scope="col">05/12/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>552.6</td>
<td>588.0</td>
<td>-24.3%</td>
<td>708.6</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>396.4</td>
<td>426.7</td>
<td>-9.1%</td>
<td>470.9</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>1,480.5</td>
<td>1,546.8</td>
<td>-31.7%</td>
<td>2,092.3</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
UK and German Business Confidence Gains Pause in May; Export Demand Favorable 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> May 24, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060524f.jpg" width="353">
Two widely followed industrial surveys in Europe showed a slight pause in their May results, following marked improvements in the prior couple of months. They also both indicated continuing firmness in export sectors, but some hesitation in domestic activity.
The UK&#39;s Confederation of British Industry (CBI) reports that the balance on total industry orders is -12 for May, down from April&#39;s -11, but obviously much better than anytime in the previous year. Within total orders, those for exports gained dramatically, reaching a neutral value for the first time since February 1996. Thus, the UK is seeing significant and persistent improvement in export demand, but this month&#39;s gain there, combined with the decline in the overall orders balance, shows that the domestic sector faltered. In total then, the progress in manufacturing remains tenuous.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060524g.jpg" width="353">
The German organization Ifo, which specializes in applied economic research, reports that in its latest survey, the overall Business Climate Index edged down to 105.6 this month from 105.9 in April (2000=100), corresponding to diffusion balance figures of +10.4% and +11.0%, respectively. As Louise Curley noted here a month ago, these are the best readings since the spring of 1991; manufacturing, despite a slight downtick this month, is experiencing the best readings in the total history of the survey.
Details are not yet available for the factors in the Ifo survey, but as shown in the table below, wholesale trade continues to gain, while retail trade has moderated. This suggests that as in the UK, domestic demand -- at least consumption -- remains fragile, while broader industry is still advancing. Businesses also report to Ifo that they are less confident about activity in the next six months; the business expectations index decreased 3 points from 13.4% in April to 10.4% in May, which also is the lowest since January. The business situation index, in contrast, continues to increase, showing that current activity is expanding at more and more firms.
We&#39;d guess that skepticism over the outlook is related to energy prices and to the recent surge in the euro. While the latter wouldn&#39;t correspond to assessments of better export performance, it also might foster more imports, to the detriment of local industry. So, despite the recent gains in both Germany and the UK, it&#39;s not hard to understand that business leaders remain cautious.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">% Balance, SA</th>
<th scope="col">May 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 2006</th>
<th scope="col">May 2005</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">UK CBI Total Orders</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>-16</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>-21</td>
<td>-9</td>
<td>-29</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Export Orders</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-13</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-21</td>
<td>-13</td>
<td>-33</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">German Ifo Business Climate </td>
<td>10.4</td>
<td>11.0</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>-15.7</td>
<td>-9.7</td>
<td>-9.9</td>
<td>-17.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Manufacturing</td>
<td>19.4</td>
<td>20.7</td>
<td>19.2</td>
<td>-5.6</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>-7.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Wholesale Trade</td>
<td>12.4</td>
<td>10.8</td>
<td>9.7</td>
<td>-16.6</td>
<td>-9.9</td>
<td>-16.6</td>
<td>-25.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Retail Trade</td>
<td>-5.7</td>
<td>-5.2</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>-35.1</td>
<td>-28.0</td>
<td>-30.7</td>
<td>-22.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Services*</td>
<td>22.5</td>
<td>23.5</td>
<td>21.0</td>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>-0.4</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/060523c.jpg" width="353">
Several confidence indicators were released today--consumer and business indicators for the Netherlands and Slovenia, consumer confidence for Italy and business confidence for France.
Consumer confidence rose in both the Netherlands and in Slovenia in May, but confidence remains weak in both countries.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060523e.jpg" width="353"> Pessimists continue to outweigh optimists. In the Netherlands the excess of pessimists declined from 6% to 4%, while in Slovenia, the comparable figures were 19% and 15%. The first chart shows consumer confidence in the Netherlands and Slovenia, expressed as the percent balance between pessimists and optimists. Consumers in Italy also were slightly more optimistic in May than in April. The ISAE (Instituto de Studie Analisi Economica) Index of consumer confidence rose from 106.0 in April (1980=100) to 107.6 in May. Once again, it is clear from the second chart that the overall mood of the Italian consumer is subdued.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060523d.jpg" width="353">
Both the Netherlands and Slovenia have also reported measures of business confidence. In both countries, those looking for improvement in the outlook have been greater than those looking for a deterioration since the last half of 2005. The percent balance, however, weakened in May. In the Netherlands the excess of optimists over pessimists fell from 6.1% in April to 3.3% in May. In Slovenia, the comparable figures were 7% and 6%. Business confidence measures in the two countries are shown in the third chart. In France, the INSEE (Institut de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques) Monthly Business Survey also showed some weakness in business confidence. The percent balance of those responding to questions on the general outlook in manufacturing declined from 2% in April to 1% in May.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/JAPAN/@J5/@J5.HTM">Japan:</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar 06</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 06</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 05</th>
<th scope="col">M/M DIF </th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y DIF</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2003&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">The Netherlands (% Bal)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>-4</td>
<td>-6</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>-25</td>
<td>-35</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Business Confidence</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-5.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Slovenia (% Bal)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>-15</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>4 </td>
<td>-1</td>
<td>-20</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>-20</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Business Confidence</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>-1</td>
<td>-1 </td>
<td>7</td>
<td>-0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Italy (1980=100)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>106.7</td>
<td>106.0</td>
<td>104.2</td>
<td>1.51* </td>
<td>3.26*</td>
<td>104.2</td>
<td>101.4</td>
<td>106.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France&nbsp; (% Bal)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Business Outlook&nbsp;</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>-1</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>-29</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Several confidence indicators were released today--consumer and business indicators for the Netherlands and Slovenia, consumer confidence for Italy and business confidence for France. Consumer confidence rose in both the Netherlands [...]

Dutch, Slovene and Italian Consumers a Little More Confident: Dutch, Slovene, and French Business a Little Less So

<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>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060523a.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales dropped last week for the second week in the last three reported the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS. The 0.8% w/w decline followed an unchanged level the prior period and a 0.4% dip to open the month. 
In May, sales on average are roughly even with the April average which rose 1.6% from March. During the last ten years there has been a 47% 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.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060523b.jpg" width="353">
The latest leading indicator of chain chain store sales from ICSC-UBS fell for the fourth straight week. The 0.6% decline pulled the indicator down 2.7% versus one year ago and 4.5% from the recent peak in early January.
Lower chain store sales accompanied a six cent drop in retail gasoline prices to $2.88 per gallon. Nevertheless, average gasoline prices this month are up seventeen cents from April at $2.91 (34.8% y/y). Yesterday gasoline prices in the NY spot market recovered to the highest level in four days but spot prices this month have averaged roughly ten cents below the April level.
The NOAA: 2006 Atlantic Hurricane Outlook released yesterday can be found <a href="http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.shtml"> here</a>.
The latest Short-Term Energy Outlook from the US Energy Information Administration is available <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html">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/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">05/20/06</th>
<th scope="col">05/13/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>472.0</td>
<td>475.7</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Chain store sales dropped last week for the second week in the last three reported the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS. The 0.8% w/w decline followed an unchanged level the prior period and a 0.4% dip to open the [...]

Chain Store Sales Down Again With Gasoline Prices

<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>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060523a.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales dropped last week for the second week in the last three reported the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS. The 0.8% w/w decline followed an unchanged level the prior period and a 0.4% dip to open the month. 
In May, sales on average are roughly even with the April average which rose 1.6% from March. During the last ten years there has been a 47% 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.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060523b.jpg" width="353">
The latest leading indicator of chain chain store sales from ICSC-UBS fell for the fourth straight week. The 0.6% decline pulled the indicator down 2.7% versus one year ago and 4.5% from the recent peak in early January.
Lower chain store sales accompanied a six cent drop in retail gasoline prices to $2.88 per gallon. Nevertheless, average gasoline prices this month are up seventeen cents from April at $2.91 (34.8% y/y). Yesterday gasoline prices in the NY spot market recovered to the highest level in four days but spot prices this month have averaged roughly ten cents below the April level.
The NOAA: 2006 Atlantic Hurricane Outlook released yesterday can be found <a href="http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.shtml"> here</a>.
The latest Short-Term Energy Outlook from the US Energy Information Administration is available <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html">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/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">05/20/06</th>
<th scope="col">05/13/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>472.0</td>
<td>475.7</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Dutch, Slovene and Italian Consumers a Little More Confident: Dutch, Slovene, and French Business a Little Less So  
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> May 23, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060523c.jpg" width="353">
Several confidence indicators were released today--consumer and business indicators for the Netherlands and Slovenia, consumer confidence for Italy and business confidence for France.
Consumer confidence rose in both the Netherlands and in Slovenia in May, but confidence remains weak in both countries.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060523e.jpg" width="353"> Pessimists continue to outweigh optimists. In the Netherlands the excess of pessimists declined from 6% to 4%, while in Slovenia, the comparable figures were 19% and 15%. The first chart shows consumer confidence in the Netherlands and Slovenia, expressed as the percent balance between pessimists and optimists. Consumers in Italy also were slightly more optimistic in May than in April. The ISAE (Instituto de Studie Analisi Economica) Index of consumer confidence rose from 106.0 in April (1980=100) to 107.6 in May. Once again, it is clear from the second chart that the overall mood of the Italian consumer is subdued.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060523d.jpg" width="353">
Both the Netherlands and Slovenia have also reported measures of business confidence. In both countries, those looking for improvement in the outlook have been greater than those looking for a deterioration since the last half of 2005. The percent balance, however, weakened in May. In the Netherlands the excess of optimists over pessimists fell from 6.1% in April to 3.3% in May. In Slovenia, the comparable figures were 7% and 6%. Business confidence measures in the two countries are shown in the third chart. In France, the INSEE (Institut de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques) Monthly Business Survey also showed some weakness in business confidence. The percent balance of those responding to questions on the general outlook in manufacturing declined from 2% in April to 1% in May.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/JAPAN/@J5/@J5.HTM">Japan:</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar 06</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 06</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 05</th>
<th scope="col">M/M DIF </th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y DIF</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2003&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">The Netherlands (% Bal)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>-4</td>
<td>-6</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>-25</td>
<td>-35</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Business Confidence</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-5.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Slovenia (% Bal)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>-15</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>4 </td>
<td>-1</td>
<td>-20</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>-20</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Business Confidence</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>-1</td>
<td>-1 </td>
<td>7</td>
<td>-0</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Italy (1980=100)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>106.7</td>
<td>106.0</td>
<td>104.2</td>
<td>1.51* </td>
<td>3.26*</td>
<td>104.2</td>
<td>101.4</td>
<td>106.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France&nbsp; (% Bal)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Business Outlook&nbsp;</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>-1</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>-29</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

<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/060522c.jpg" width="353">
The Euro Zone as a whole has typically had a surplus on its trade in goods with non Euro Zone countries. However, in August, October and December of 2005 and in January and February of this year substantial deficits were recorded.The rising price of oil led to increased imports and an increasing euro led to some dampening of export demand. In March, however, a small surplus was recorded as seasonally adjusted imports declined by 1.5% and exports rose 1.2%. The first chart shows monthly exports and imports of goods for the Euro Zone on a seasonally adjusted basis.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060522d.jpg" width="353">
The 25 member European Union as a group has typically runs a deficit of its trade in goods with non EU members as can be seen in the second chart, which shows the gap between imports and exports. The deficit in March was 12.2 billion euros, down from 14.8 billion euros in February but 5.4 billion euros over March 2005. It is not possible to derive the trade balance and exports and imports of the non Euro Zone European Union Members from these series. The Euro Zone data refer to trade with all non Euro Zone countries, including those in the European Union, while the EU25 data refer to trade with non EU countries. However, seasonally adjusted data for the Euro Zone trade balance, imports and exports with major countries and selected groups of countries are available as well as seasonally unadjusted data for the trade balance, imports and exports for each of the EU25 countries.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/EUROSTAT/@U7/@U7C/@U7C.HTM">Billions of Euros</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar 06</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 06</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 05</th>
<th scope="col">M/M % </th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2003&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Euro Zone Balance on Trade</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>3.2*</td>
<td>-2.4*</td>
<td>23.3</td>
<td>72.3</td>
<td>69.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Exports</td>
<td>111.4</td>
<td>110.0</td>
<td>97.7</td>
<td>1.22</td>
<td>13.92</td>
<td>1236.0</td>
<td>1147.4</td>
<td>1060.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Imports</td>
<td>111.0</td>
<td>112.8</td>
<td>94.9</td>
<td>-1.51</td>
<td>17.02</td>
<td>1212.7</td>
<td>1075.0</td>
<td>990.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">European Union Balance on Trade&nbsp;</td>
<td>-12.2</td>
<td>-14.8</td>
<td>-8.8</td>
<td>-2.6*</td>
<td>-3.4*</td>
<td>-106.1</td>
<td>-620</td>
<td>-58.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Exports</td>
<td>96.5</td>
<td>95.8</td>
<td>84.5</td>
<td>0.73</td>
<td>14.26</td>
<td>1068.1</td>
<td>964.5</td>
<td>883.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Imports</td>
<td>108.6</td>
<td>110.7</td>
<td>91.3</td>
<td>-1.72</td>
<td>19.12</td>
<td>1174.3</td>
<td>1026.6</td>
<td>942.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Euro Zone as a whole has typically had a surplus on its trade in goods with non Euro Zone countries. However, in August, October and December of 2005 and in January and February of this year substantial deficits were recorded.The [...]

Euro Zone Has Small Surplus on Trade in Goods in March: EU 25 a Smaller Deficit

<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/060522b.jpg" width="353">
Gold prices near $700.00 per ounce of late point up the not-so-latent market concerns that inflationary pressure is rising. Since 1980 there has been a 56% correlation between the level of gold prices and the y/y change in consumer prices.
Concerns were further heightened by the report that &quot;core&quot; consumer price inflation in April was 2.3% (y/y). That was no higher than during early 2005 but it was an acceleration from 2.0% last summer. Faster growth in shelter prices is behind some of the acceleration though prices in many other categories of services, such as education &amp; communication, recreation and public transportation have accelerated as well. Tempering the acceleration has been a sharp drop in in medical care services price inflation. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060522a.jpg" width="353">
Despite slower growth in gasoline demand, retail gasoline prices have moved higher to $2.95 per gallon. Spot gasoline prices fell to under $2.00 per gallon in New York, down roughly 10% from the peak early this month, while crude oil prices similarly are off nearly ten percent from their highs.
Industrial metal prices also have been rising. The JoC-ECRI Industrial Metals Prices Index is up 24.5% this year as prices for aluminum (up 32.9%), copper scrap (up 49.7%) and zinc (up 88.0%) all have been strong. High grade copper prices are up 73.5% since year end &#39;05. Growth in industrial production is behind the rise and during the last ten years there has been a 49% correlation between the level of industrial metals&#39; prices and the y/y change in OECD Big Seven industrial production.

<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">05/16/06</th>
<th scope="col">12/27/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Light Sweet Crude Oil, WTI&nbsp; (per bbl.)</td>
<td>$69.54</td>
<td>$58.16</td>
<td>42.0%</td>
<td>$58.16</td>
<td>$41.78</td>
<td>$32.78</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">U.S. Retail Gasoline (per gallon)</td>
<td>$2.95</td>
<td>$2.20</td>
<td>36.2%</td>
<td>$2.27</td>
<td>$1.85</td>
<td>$1.56</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Gold: Handy &amp; Harmon (per Troy Oz., EOP)</td>
<td>$692.00</td>
<td>$507.40</td>
<td>64.8%</td>
<td>$507.40</td>
<td>$443.40</td>
<td>$416.25</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">High Grade Copper (Comex, /Lb., EOP)</td>
<td>$3.98</td>
<td>$2.28</td>
<td>177.8%</td>
<td>$2.28</td>
<td>$1.54</td>
<td>$1.04</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Stainless Steel Scrap (/ton, EOP)</td>
<td>$1,574</td>
<td>$1,268</td>
<td>-4.1%</td>
<td>$1,268</td>
<td>$1,558</td>
<td>$1,265</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Gold prices near $700.00 per ounce of late point up the not-so-latent market concerns that inflationary pressure is rising. Since 1980 there has been a 56% correlation between the level of gold prices and the y/y change in consumer [...]

Inflation Pressure Up

USD/EUR exchange rate uncoupling from interest rate differential

Widespread downgrading of 2025 GDP outlook

Trade and fiscal policy uncertainty has exploded with the new administration

Much lower US electricity costs gives it a competitive advantage

Wage growth slowing in the US and Euro area; elevated and sticky in the UK

Stagflation-lite: Blue Chip forecasts below-trend growth and elevated inflation

US policy gyrations boosting policy uncertainty worldwide

Expected tariff hikes have boosted inflation expectations

US and Japan ended 2024 on solid ground in contrast to Europe

US economy expected to outperform other major economies in 2025

Only modest evidence of AI-related surge in US productivity growth

Previous Trump tariffs fading. A boost from new tariffs ahead?

Heavy US manufacturing states underperforming while Sun Belt states outperforming

Rising long-term yields a global phenomenon

US financial market concerns shifting from growth to inflation

Economic activity is picking up in the US but remains lackluster abroad

Policy uncertainty has surged since the US national elections.

Recent turnaround in US economic surprises leading to increases in rate-cut expectations

The outlook has brightened in the US, while it has dimmed for other major economies

Headline US PCE inflation elevated by sticky services prices

US and global equity prices have recently diverged

US leading global upturn in economic surprises

Blue Chip forecasters look for further significant monetary easing apart from Japan

Recent rise in global supply chain pressures could augur a pickup in global inflation pressures

Underperforming German economy generating increased policy uncertainty relative to Europe and the US

Our global data offering is unparalleled in terms of coverage, quality, and organization. We offer 290+ databases from 2500 government and private sources, a wealth of key survey and forecast data covering the world’s economies, and a robust offering of archive databases that drive machine learning for big data applications.

Optimized for precision analytics, our data is seamlessly integrated with Microsoft Office and all leading statistical packages through our DLX® software and platform independent HaverView™ website. We further offer direct database feeds, client server or cloud-based delivery, and RESTful API.


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

A premier time series data platform for the global strategy, research, and quant communities. 

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

250502A5.jpg

250502B5.jpg

Nonfarm payrolls increased 177,000 (1.2% y/y) during April after rising 185,000 in March, revised from 228,000, and 102,000 in February, revised from 117,000. Expectations had been for a 130,000 rise in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The latest figure left the three-month average change at 155,000 in April, down from 232,000 in January.

Average hourly earnings rose 0.2% during April after unrevised increases of 0.3% in March and 0.2% in February. Earnings growth of 3.8% y/y was below the 5.9% high in March 2022.

The unemployment rate, measured in the household survey, held m/m at an expected 4.2% in April, and compared to 4.1% in February and 4.0% in January. It reached a low of 3.4% in April 2023. The unemployment rate, including employees working part-time for economic reasons plus all marginally-attached workers, eased to 7.8% in April from 7.9% in March.

In the **establishment survey**, private-sector employment rose 167,000 (1.2% y/y) after a 170,000 March increase. Factory sector jobs edged 1,000 lower (-0.7% y/y) following a 3,000 gain. Construction sector employment increased 11,000 (1.7% y/y), after rising 7,000 in March.

Private service-producing sector employment increased 156,000 (1.4% y/y) in April after improving 161,000 in March. Increases varied greatly amongst service sector categories. Private education & health sector employment rose 70,000 (3.4% y/y) last month following a 74,000 March increase. Leisure & hospitality employment rose 24,000 (1.3% y/y) after a 38,000 gain. Trade, transportation & utilities rose 32,000 (0.9% y/y) in April following a 25,000 March increase. Professional & business services employment rose 17,000 (-0.1% y/y) following a 3,000 rise while temporary help employment rose 3,600 (-3.9% y/y) following a 2,700 decline. Financial activities employment improved 14,000 (1.2% y/y) after a 6,000 gain. The number of information sector jobs held steady (-0.4% y/y) last month after falling 2,000 in March.

Government sector payrolls rose 10,000 (1.3% y/y) last month after increasing 15,000 in March. The number of local government jobs increased 13,000 (1.4% y/y) following a 17,000 gain. State government employment rose 6,000 (1.8% y/y) following a 2,000 March increase but federal government payrolls fell 9,000 (-0.3% y/y), the third consecutive monthly decline.

Private-sector average hourly earnings rose 0.2% (3.8% y/y) in April after increasing 0.3% in March. Earnings in the goods-producing sector eased 0.1% (+4.0% y/y) following a 0.6% gain. Earnings in construction rose 0.3% (3.6% y/y), after a 0.2% rise but factory sector earnings declined 0.3% (+4.3% y/y) after surging 0.8% in March. In the private services-sector, earnings rose 0.2% (3.7% y/y) in April for the third straight month. Information sector pay increased 1.0% (5.2% y/y) last month after easing 0.1%, and financial activities earnings rose 0.5% (4.3% y/y) for the second straight month. Trade, transportation & utilities sector pay increased 0.4% (3.4% y/y) after 0.6%. Professional & business sector earnings increased 0.1% (4.4% y/y) after 0.2% in March. Leisure & hospitality earnings held steady (+3.8% y/y) following a 0.6% March increase.

250502C5.jpg

250502D5.jpg

The length of the average workweek held steady at 34.3 hours in April. The workweek in the goods-producing sector eased to 39.8 hours from 40.0 hours. The construction sector average workweek eased to 39.0 hours from 39.3 hours while the factory sector workweek moved lower to 40.0 hours from 40.2. The average workweek in the private service sector held at 33.2 hours. Professional & business service hours fell to 36.3 hours from 36.4 while trade, transportation & utilities hours improved to 34.3 from 34.0 hours. Private education hours rose slightly to 32.8, but leisure & hospitality held steady at 25.5 hours.

In the **household survey**, the unemployment rate held at 4.2% in April as employment rose 436,000 and the size of the labor force increased 518,000. The labor force participation rate edged up to 62.6% last month from 62.5% in March. It remained below the high of 63.3% early in 2020. The rate for teenagers declined to 36.9%. For workers aged 20-24, the rate held steady at 72.1%, up from 71.8% six months earlier. For workers aged 25-54 the rate rose to 83.6%, a five-month high. For individuals 55 and over, the rate improved to 38.4% in April.

The employment/population ratio for all workers in April rose to 60.0%. It remained below the peak reading of 61.1% in February, 2020 just prior to the pandemic.

The employment and earnings data are collected from surveys taken each month during the week containing the 12th day of the month. The labor market data are contained in Haver's **USECON** database. Detailed figures are in the **EMPL** and **LABOR** databases. The expectations figures are in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250502X5.jpg

250502F5.jpg

- Job growth spreads across most sectors.
- Earnings growth trend decelerates.
- Jobless rate holds steady.

U.S. Job Growth Is Firm in April but March Gain Is Lessened

Winnie Tapasanun

250502F32.jpg

250502G32.jpg

Total factory orders rose a slightly less-than-expected 4.3% m/m in March after rises of 0.5% in February and 1.8% in January, data from the U.S. Census Bureau showed. A 4.5% m/m March increase had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The March reading was the third successive monthly rise and the largest since July 2024. The year-on-year rate accelerated to 6.0% in March, the highest since November 2022, from 2.3% in February. Notably, orders for nondefense aircraft & parts soared 139.0% in March following a 7.4% drop in February and a 92.9% surge in January. Factory orders excluding defense rose 4.8% (5.9% y/y), the largest of three straight m/m/ rises, after a 0.4% February increase. Factory orders excluding the transportation sector fell 0.2% (+1.1% y/y), the first m/m fall since August, after rising 0.3% in February, January and December.

Durable goods orders jumped 9.2% (11.9% y/y) in March, the third consecutive m/m gain and the biggest since July 2024, on top of a 0.8% increase in February (matching +9.2% m/m in the advance report on April 24). The March jump reflected m/m orders increases of 27.1% (the largest m/m surge since July 2024; 31.2% y/y) in transportation equipment, 1.1% (4.9% y/y) in primary metals, 0.5% (-0.4% y/y) in furniture & related products, 0.1% (2.5% y/y) in fabricated metal products, and 0.1% (0.9% y/y) in machinery. To the downside, durable goods orders for computers & electronic products (-1.3%; +2.7% y/y) and electrical equipment, appliances & components (-1.0%; +4.2% y/y) declined m/m in March.

Nondurable goods orders, which equal nondurable goods shipments, fell 0.3% (+0.4% y/y) in March, the first m/m fall since September, after a 0.1% uptick in February. The March fall reflected m/m drops of 2.4% (-9.3% y/y) in petroleum & coal products and 0.9% (-1.2% y/y) in apparel. To the upside, the following nondurable goods shipments rose m/m in March: leather & allied products (1.5%; 8.6% y/y), beverage & tobacco products (0.7%; 5.8% y/y), paper products (0.6%; 2.3% y/y), printing (0.3%; 3.8% y/y), textile mills (0.3%; 0.8% y/y), chemical products (0.2%; 5.4% y/y), plastics & rubber products (0.2%; 0.4% y/y), food products (0.1%; 1.8% y/y), and textile products (0.1%; 2.1% y/y).

Total shipments slipped 0.1% (+2.0% y/y) in March, the first m/m easing since October, after a 0.7% increase in February. Excluding transportation, shipments were virtually unchanged m/m (+1.1% y/y) in March following six straight m/m gains. Shipments of durable goods industries inched up 0.1% (3.8% y/y) in March, the smallest of four consecutive m/m increases, after a 1.3% advance in February. This reflected m/m durable goods shipments rises of 1.2% (5.6% y/y) in primary metals, 0.9% (0.1% y/y) in furniture & related products, 0.8% (-0.2% y/y) in nonmetallic mineral products, 0.4% (0.0% y/y) in machinery, 0.3% (1.8% y/y) in fabricated metal products, 0.2% (4.5% y/y) in computers & electronic products, 0.2% (-2.1% y/y) in wood products, and 0.1% (3.0% y/y) in electrical equipment, appliances & components. In contrast, durable goods shipments for transportation equipment (-0.5%; +7.3% y/y) and miscellaneous durable goods (-0.1%; +2.9% y/y) fell m/m in March following three successive m/m increases.

Unfilled orders rose 2.0% (2.3% y/y) in March, up for the eighth month in nine, after a 0.1% uptick in February. Excluding transportation, unfilled orders dipped 0.1% (+0.7% y/y) in March, the first m/m easing since May 2024, after holding steady in February. Backlogs of durable goods rose 2.0% (2.3% y/y) in March, reflecting m/m rises of 3.1% (3.1% y/y) in transportation equipment and 0.2% (2.4% y/y) in electrical equipment, appliances & components.

Inventories edged up 0.1% (0.9% y/y) in March, the fifth straight m/m increase, after rising at the same pace in the prior two months. Excluding transportation, inventories were up 0.1% (0.5% y/y) in March, the fifth consecutive m/m rise. Durable goods inventories ticked up 0.1% (1.0% y/y) in March after holding steady in February and January; nondurable goods inventories edged up 0.1% (0.8% y/y), the fifth successive m/m increase.

The factory sector data are available in Haver’s **USECON** database. The Action Economics Forecast Survey is in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250502H32.jpg

250502I32.jpg

- March manufacturers’ new orders +4.3% m/m; +6.0% y/y, highest since Nov. ’22.
- Durable goods orders (+9.2%) jump m/m, while nondurable goods orders (-0.3%) and shipments (-0.1%) decline m/m.
- Transportation equipt. orders +27.1% m/m, w/ a 139.0% m/m surge in nondefense aircraft & parts orders.
- Unfilled orders +2.0%, the eighth m/m rise in nine months.
- Inventories +0.1%, the fifth consecutive m/m increase.

U.S. Factory Orders Increase for the Third Straight Month in March

Robert Brusca

250502E.jpg

The global manufacturing data showed broad weakening in April as conditions weakened across more than half of the contributing early reporters in the S&P survey of manufacturing. Of the 18 early reporting countries, more than half of them showed deceleration over six months and 12 months. Over three months, only 8 of 18 showed deterioration and that's about as good as it got in this report. In the current month, month-to-month changes showed more than half of the survey contributors showing weaker results than the month before. In the S&P framework, manufacturing improved month-to-month for the U.S.; however, looking at sequential averages for the U.S., U.K., European monetary union, Canada, and Japan, we see a steady weakening and results over 12 months, over six months versus 12 months, and for three months versus 6 months. The highly developed countries are not doing particularly well.

Asian economies are also showing slight deterioration but doing a little better than the developed countries in general.

Only five of the 18 reporting countries have queue percentile standings in their data back to January 2021 that are above their medians. Readings at or above the 50% mark are at or above the median standing. Canada is showing the weakest manufacturing result on record over this span, in terms of its queue percentile standing which is at 0 in the current month.

I showed the graphic for the Baltic dry goods index in this report rather than statistics on the manufacturing PMI data because the Baltic data, which reflect shipping volume for dry goods - that is excluding things like oil - is weak but it's only in the neighborhood where it's been for some time. There has been a great deal of talk about how tariffs may have impacted trade flows, expected trade flows, shipping, shipping rates, and the like. However, according to the Baltic dry goods index, there isn't much evidence that this is occurring right now and affecting the current data. That may still lie ahead but for now it's not baked in the cake.

250502.jpg

Globally Manufacturing Weakens

Andrew Cates

**China-US shipping activity** 
The economic fallout from escalating US-China trade tensions is becoming increasingly visible in the data. A clear example is the chart below, which highlights a sharp drop in vessel arrivals at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, along with a notable decline in ships waiting offshore. These trends point to a tangible weakening in bilateral trade flows, as the effects of tit-for-tat tariffs imposed by both countries begin to bite. Given the outsized role the US and China play in global commerce, this slowdown is likely to reverberate through global supply chains, weighing on trade volumes, dampening demand, and curbing economic growth worldwide.

250501Z1.jpg

**GDP growth in Q1**
Data this week showed that the US economy contracted, albeit modestly, in Q1 even as the euro area recorded a modest expansion—an unusual divergence. The contraction in US GDP can be largely attributed to a sharp increase in imports, as firms rushed to front-load purchases ahead of anticipated tariff hikes. In addition, domestic demand was subdued, with weaker contributions from both consumer spending and government consumption. This decoupling between the US and euro area economies is particularly striking given the current global focus on the US dollar. While the euro area has shown unexpected signs of resilience, the US downturn raises important questions about its underlying momentum, especially as trade dynamics and policy uncertainty continue to cloud the outlook.

250501Z2.jpg

**The US dollar versus yield differentials**
Chart 3 below illustrates a sharp breakdown in the correlation between the US-Germany 10-year yield differential and the EUR/USD exchange rate. Historically, the dollar has moved closely with interest rate spreads, as yield-seeking capital flowed into US assets. But since early 2025—and more acutely following the April tariff actions—the dollar has weakened markedly even as the yield spread has narrowed only modestly. This decoupling underscores a critical shift: capital markets are reacting not just to monetary policy, but to rising trade and geopolitical uncertainty. In other words, the exchange rate is now being driven as much by risk sentiment as by interest rate arbitrage.

250501Z3.jpg

**The US economy’s structural outperformance and the dollar**
A second dynamic, captured in the next chart, reveals a tight correlation between the US real effective exchange rate and the potential GDP growth differential between the US and euro area over the past 50-60 years. This raises the question: has dollar strength (until recently) merely been a reflection of US growth leadership—or are capital inflows themselves helping to sustain this growth outperformance? In effect, the tail may be wagging the dog. Global investors have long allocated capital to the US, attracted by its macroeconomic resilience, technological leadership, and deep, liquid financial markets. The danger now is that the US trade war may disrupt this equilibrium. A sharp or sustained reduction in capital inflows could undermine growth, weaken the dollar, and trigger broader financial instability. Moreover, reversing this dynamic is not straightforward—barring a credible structural resurgence in European (or Asian) growth, the global investment landscape remains tilted toward the US.

250501Z4.jpg

**US competitiveness versus Europe, China and Japan** 
The next chart below examines relative unit labour costs across major economies since 2011. The US and China have seen a broadly similar trajectory, with steady increases in relative cost structures, while the euro area has remained flat and Japan has seen dramatic improvement. This suggests that, from a cost competitiveness standpoint, the US is not uniquely disadvantaged vis-à-vis China. However, as we discuss further below, this parallel erosion of cost competitiveness is occurring at much higher nominal wage levels in the US, which blunts its ability to regain export share through tariff-related shifts alone. The trade war strategy—absent a corresponding improvement in productivity or structural reforms—risks imposing costs without delivering material competitiveness gains.

250501Z5.jpg

**Average wages in selected developed and developing economies**
This point is reinforced by the final chart, which shows estimates for average monthly wages across countries in 2024. US labour remains much more expensive than in peer or emerging economies. So even if China’s costs rise in tandem with the US, the global supply chain has ample alternatives. 'China plus one' strategies are accelerating, and the US remains structurally misaligned with low-cost production hubs. Tariffs aimed at reshoring supply chains are unlikely to deliver sustained gains unless accompanied by deep supply-side reforms, and risk further disincentivizing foreign direct investment if global firms perceive US trade policy as erratic or punitive.

250501Z6.jpg

Financial markets found a measure of calm this week, buoyed by some subtle shifts in tone from US policymakers. A softening in the administration’s rhetoric around trade tariffs coupled with a less confrontational stance toward Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, helped ease tensions that had roiled markets earlier in the month. Equities rebounded modestly, and volatility indicators edged lower, reflecting cautious optimism that the worst of the policy shocks may be behind us. But beneath the surface, significant downside risks persist. New shipping data point to a pronounced slowdown in US-China trade flows (chart 1), suggesting the damage from recent tariff escalations is already rippling through global supply chains. Meanwhile, incoming data for the US revealed an unexpected contraction in the economy in Q1 and further signs of weakness in the labour market (chart 2). The US dollar, in the meantime, while long supported by superior growth and yield differentials, has begun to decouple from traditional drivers (charts 3 and 4) suggesting growing pressure on capital flows. At the same time, structural imbalances are drawing renewed scrutiny: unit labour cost comparisons show the US steadily losing competitiveness (chart 5), while nominal wage disparities remain stark versus China and other Asian economies, further complicating any effort to restore trade balance without broader reforms (chart 6). In short, while markets may be drawing temporary comfort from a pause in tariff brinkmanship, the deeper economic and financial vulnerabilities exposed this month remain unresolved—and increasingly central to the global macro narrative.

<iframe style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/3PzXXKrkHcwtOLipohEdnB?utm_source=generator" width="100%" height="152" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" loading="lazy"></iframe>

Charts of the Week: Tariff Truce, Tenuous Trust

250501F20.jpg

250501G20.jpg

U.S. light vehicle sales dropped 2.9% (+6.5% y/y) to 17.31 million units (SAAR) in April after surging 10.8% to 17.82 million units in March. The retreat in April vehicle sales accompanied a 1.7% y/y rise in real disposable income through March, which compared to 2.0% growth last year.

Sales declines were broad-based last month. Light truck sales fell 1.3% (+9.9% y/y) during April to 14.34 million units (SAAR), after rising 12.4% in March. Purchases of domestically-made light trucks declined 1.2% (+11.9% y/y) to 11.02 million units, after jumping 12.5% in March. Sales of imported light trucks fell 1.8% (+4.4% y/y) to 3.32 million units, following an 11.6% March surge.

Trucks’ record 82.8% share of the light vehicle market last month compared to 81.5% in March and 80.3% in April of last year. The share averaged 80.3% during all of 2024 versus 53.3% ten years earlier.

Auto sales also declined last month, down 9.5% (-7.5%) to 2.97 million units (SAAR) following a 3.5% March rise. The decline reversed all of the increase over the prior two months. Purchases of domestically-produced cars fell 9.8% (-4.3% y/y) last month to 2.22 million units, after rising 3.8% in March. Sales of imported autos declined 9.6% (-15.7% y/y) to 0.75 million units, following a 2.5% March increase.

Imports' 23.5% share of the U.S. light vehicle market was little changed from 23.6% in March and compared to a May 2023 low of 22.9% and a high of 26.3% in November of 2023. Imports' share of the passenger car market held steady at 25.3% last month and compared to 27.7% in April of last year. It reached a high of 38.7% in September 2021. Imports' share of the light truck market eased to 23.2% last month after falling to 23.3% in March.

U.S. vehicle sales figures can be found in Haver's **USECON** database. Additional detail by manufacturer is in the I**NDUSTRY** database.

250501H20.jpg

250501I20.jpg

- Light truck sales pull back, while auto sales tumble.
- Both domestic and imported sales decline.
- Imports' market share slips further.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

New Home Sales Again Rose Unexpectedly

New Orders for U.S. Durable Goods Fell

New Orders for U.S. Durable Goods Fell

Dutch, Slovene and Italian Consumers a Little More Confident: Dutch, Slovene, and French Business a Little Less So

Chain Store Sales Down Again With Gasoline Prices

Chain Store Sales Down Again With Gasoline Prices

Euro Zone Has Small Surplus on Trade in Goods in March: EU 25 a Smaller Deficit

Inflation Pressure Up