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/060320c.jpg" width="353">
Producer prices in Germany rose 0.7% in February. Prices of intermediate goods were up 0.56%, those of investment goods fell 0.10% and prices of consumer goods were unchanged. The rise was due almost entirely to continued rising energy costs. As the first chart shows, energy price increases have greatly exceeded those of the index excluding construction and energy since early 2005, widening the gap between the two series
The rise in February was larger than expected and is likely to increase inflation concerns of the European Central Bank (ECB). The ECB has already raised its key interest rate from 2%, which had been in place since June 2003, to 2.25% last December and again in March to 2.5%.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060320d.jpg" width="353">
While the ECB focuses on the consumer price index, it is mindful of the potential impact that rising producer prices may have on consumer prices. The second chart shows the course of consumer and producer prices over the past five years.The rise in producer prices over the past year has been bigger and more persistent than previous rises and is, therefore, more likely to have a significant impact on consumer prices.
Even if energy prices should stabilize or decline, these second-round effects of the high energy prices could soon begin to affect consumer prices particularly as the economy continues to show signs of increased activity. Early this month, February new orders, both foreign and domestic were reported to have increased and last week, Manpower reported that German employers intended to increase employment in the first two quarters of this year.

<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/GERMANY/@D4/@D45/@D45.HTM">German Producer&nbsp; Price Index (2000=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb 06</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 06</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 05</th>
<th scope="col">M/M %</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2005&nbsp; </th>
<th scope="col">2004&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2003&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total ex construction</td>
<td>114.9</td>
<td>114.1</td>
<td>108.5</td>
<td>0.70</td>
<td>5.89</td>
<td>110.7</td>
<td>105.8</td>
<td>104.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Intermediate goods&nbsp;</td>
<td>108.2</td>
<td>107.6</td>
<td>106.4</td>
<td>0.56</td>
<td>1.69</td>
<td>106.5</td>
<td>103.2</td>
<td>100.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Investment goods</td>
<td>103.3</td>
<td>103.4</td>
<td>102.9</td>
<td>-0.10</td>
<td>0.39</td>
<td>103.0</td>
<td>102.1</td>
<td>101.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer goods</td>
<td>107.7</td>
<td>107.7</td>
<td>106.4</td>
<td>0.00</td>
<td>1.22</td>
<td>106.9</td>
<td>105.2</td>
<td>104.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Energy</td>
<td>148.8</td>
<td>145.8</td>
<td>121.2</td>
<td>2.06</td>
<td>22.77</td>
<td>131.5</td>
<td>115.4</td>
<td>112.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total ex construction &amp; energy&nbsp;</td>
<td>106.7&nbsp;</td>
<td>106.4</td>
<td>105.5</td>
<td>0.28&nbsp;</td>
<td>1.14&nbsp;</td>
<td>105.5&nbsp;</td>
<td>103.5&nbsp;</td>
<td>102.0&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Price Index</td>
<td>109.4</td>
<td>109.2</td>
<td>107.1</td>
<td>0.18</td>
<td>2.15</td>
<td>108.3</td>
<td>106.2</td>
<td>104.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Producer prices in Germany rose 0.7% in February. Prices of intermediate goods were up 0.56%, those of investment goods fell 0.10% and prices of consumer goods were unchanged. The rise was due almost entirely to continued rising [...]

Inflation at the Producer Level Heats up in Germany

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/060320a.jpg" width="353">
The weekly leading index of the US economy published by the Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI) slipped 0.1% last week. The decline was the fifth in the last six weeks and lowered the index&#39;s six month growth rate to 3.0% from an early February high of 5.1%.
During the last ten years there has been a 53% correlation between the change in the weekly leading index and US real GDP growth during the following quarter. The correlation has risen to 71% during the last five years.
The very recent deceleration in the leaders&#39; growth follows improvement early this year. That slowdown mirrors the pattern of slightly slower growth in the leading series from the Conference Board and the OECD.
Visit the <a href="http://www.businesscycle.com/">Economic Cycle Research Institute</a> for analysis of US and international business cycles.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Economic Cycle Research Institute&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">3/10/06</th>
<th scope="col">12/30/05</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>
<td class="firstcol">Weekly Leading Index</td>
<td>136.8</td>
<td>135.7</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>134.5</td>
<td>132.6</td>
<td>124.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; 6 Month Growth Rate</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The weekly leading index of the US economy published by the Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI) slipped 0.1% last week. The decline was the fifth in the last six weeks and lowered the index's six month growth rate to 3.0% from an [...]

ECRI Leading Index: Momentum Strength Diminished

<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/060320b.jpg" width="353">
The Composite Index of Leading Economic Indicators fell 0.2% last month following four months of increase, reported the Conference Board. The decline about matched Consensus expectations for a 0.3% drop but it was accompanied by a revision to January which halved that month&#39;s gain to 0.5% from the 1.1% surge estimated initially.
During the last ten years there has been a 43% correlation between the six-month change in the leading indicators and quarterly growth in real GDP.
The breadth of one month gain amongst the 10 components of the leading index fell to 50% in February from 70% in January although over six months the breadth of gain in the leaders surged back to 90%.
Higher initial claims for unemployment insurance, easier vendor performance, lower consumer expectations and lower building permits made large negative contributions to last month&#39;s decline in the leading index.
The minimal 0.01 percentage point positive contribution from the spread between yields on the 10 year Treasury Note and the Fed funds rate was the was the second in two months. The method of calculating the contribution to the index from the interest rate yield spread has been revised. A negative contribution will now occur only when the spread inverts rather than when declining as in the past. More details can be found <a href="http://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/economics/bci/lei0705.pdf">here</a>.
The leading index is based on eight previously reported economic data series. Two series, orders for consumer goods and orders for capital goods, are estimated.
The coincident indicators rose 0.3% following an unchanged reading for January, initially reported at +0.2%. All of the four component series rose both last month and during the last six months. During the last ten years there has been a 64% correlation between the change in the coincident indicators and real GDP.
The lagging indicators rose just 0.1% following a downwardly revised 0.5% January gain. Over the last six months, three quarters of the series&#39; components rose. The ratio of coincident to lagging indicators, a measure of actual economic performance versus excess, reversed most of the prior month&#39;s decline.
Visit the Conference Board&#39;s <a href="http://www.conference-board.org">site</a> for coverage of leading indicator series from around the world.

<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/BCI/BCI.HTM">Business Cycle Indicators</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">6 Month Chg., AR</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">Leading</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Coincident</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Lagging</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Composite Index of Leading Economic Indicators fell 0.2% last month following four months of increase, reported the Conference Board. The decline about matched Consensus expectations for a 0.3% drop but it was accompanied by a [...]

Leading Economic Indicators 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/060320b.jpg" width="353">
The Composite Index of Leading Economic Indicators fell 0.2% last month following four months of increase, reported the Conference Board. The decline about matched Consensus expectations for a 0.3% drop but it was accompanied by a revision to January which halved that month&#39;s gain to 0.5% from the 1.1% surge estimated initially.
During the last ten years there has been a 43% correlation between the six-month change in the leading indicators and quarterly growth in real GDP.
The breadth of one month gain amongst the 10 components of the leading index fell to 50% in February from 70% in January although over six months the breadth of gain in the leaders surged back to 90%.
Higher initial claims for unemployment insurance, easier vendor performance, lower consumer expectations and lower building permits made large negative contributions to last month&#39;s decline in the leading index.
The minimal 0.01 percentage point positive contribution from the spread between yields on the 10 year Treasury Note and the Fed funds rate was the was the second in two months. The method of calculating the contribution to the index from the interest rate yield spread has been revised. A negative contribution will now occur only when the spread inverts rather than when declining as in the past. More details can be found <a href="http://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/economics/bci/lei0705.pdf">here</a>.
The leading index is based on eight previously reported economic data series. Two series, orders for consumer goods and orders for capital goods, are estimated.
The coincident indicators rose 0.3% following an unchanged reading for January, initially reported at +0.2%. All of the four component series rose both last month and during the last six months. During the last ten years there has been a 64% correlation between the change in the coincident indicators and real GDP.
The lagging indicators rose just 0.1% following a downwardly revised 0.5% January gain. Over the last six months, three quarters of the series&#39; components rose. The ratio of coincident to lagging indicators, a measure of actual economic performance versus excess, reversed most of the prior month&#39;s decline.
Visit the Conference Board&#39;s <a href="http://www.conference-board.org">site</a> for coverage of leading indicator series from around the world.

<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/BCI/BCI.HTM">Business Cycle Indicators</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">6 Month Chg., AR</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">Leading</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Coincident</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Lagging</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
ECRI Leading Index: Momentum Strength Diminished 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 20, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060320a.jpg" width="353">
The weekly leading index of the US economy published by the Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI) slipped 0.1% last week. The decline was the fifth in the last six weeks and lowered the index&#39;s six month growth rate to 3.0% from an early February high of 5.1%.
During the last ten years there has been a 53% correlation between the change in the weekly leading index and US real GDP growth during the following quarter. The correlation has risen to 71% during the last five years.
The very recent deceleration in the leaders&#39; growth follows improvement early this year. That slowdown mirrors the pattern of slightly slower growth in the leading series from the Conference Board and the OECD.
Visit the <a href="http://www.businesscycle.com/">Economic Cycle Research Institute</a> for analysis of US and international business cycles.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Economic Cycle Research Institute&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">3/10/06</th>
<th scope="col">12/30/05</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>
<td class="firstcol">Weekly Leading Index</td>
<td>136.8</td>
<td>135.7</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>134.5</td>
<td>132.6</td>
<td>124.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; 6 Month Growth Rate</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
 Inflation at the Producer Level Heats up in Germany 
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> March 20, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060320c.jpg" width="353">
Producer prices in Germany rose 0.7% in February. Prices of intermediate goods were up 0.56%, those of investment goods fell 0.10% and prices of consumer goods were unchanged. The rise was due almost entirely to continued rising energy costs. As the first chart shows, energy price increases have greatly exceeded those of the index excluding construction and energy since early 2005, widening the gap between the two series
The rise in February was larger than expected and is likely to increase inflation concerns of the European Central Bank (ECB). The ECB has already raised its key interest rate from 2%, which had been in place since June 2003, to 2.25% last December and again in March to 2.5%.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060320d.jpg" width="353">
While the ECB focuses on the consumer price index, it is mindful of the potential impact that rising producer prices may have on consumer prices. The second chart shows the course of consumer and producer prices over the past five years.The rise in producer prices over the past year has been bigger and more persistent than previous rises and is, therefore, more likely to have a significant impact on consumer prices.
Even if energy prices should stabilize or decline, these second-round effects of the high energy prices could soon begin to affect consumer prices particularly as the economy continues to show signs of increased activity. Early this month, February new orders, both foreign and domestic were reported to have increased and last week, Manpower reported that German employers intended to increase employment in the first two quarters of this year.

<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/GERMANY/@D4/@D45/@D45.HTM">German Producer&nbsp; Price Index (2000=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb 06</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 06</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 05</th>
<th scope="col">M/M %</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2005&nbsp; </th>
<th scope="col">2004&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2003&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total ex construction</td>
<td>114.9</td>
<td>114.1</td>
<td>108.5</td>
<td>0.70</td>
<td>5.89</td>
<td>110.7</td>
<td>105.8</td>
<td>104.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Intermediate goods&nbsp;</td>
<td>108.2</td>
<td>107.6</td>
<td>106.4</td>
<td>0.56</td>
<td>1.69</td>
<td>106.5</td>
<td>103.2</td>
<td>100.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Investment goods</td>
<td>103.3</td>
<td>103.4</td>
<td>102.9</td>
<td>-0.10</td>
<td>0.39</td>
<td>103.0</td>
<td>102.1</td>
<td>101.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer goods</td>
<td>107.7</td>
<td>107.7</td>
<td>106.4</td>
<td>0.00</td>
<td>1.22</td>
<td>106.9</td>
<td>105.2</td>
<td>104.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Energy</td>
<td>148.8</td>
<td>145.8</td>
<td>121.2</td>
<td>2.06</td>
<td>22.77</td>
<td>131.5</td>
<td>115.4</td>
<td>112.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total ex construction &amp; energy&nbsp;</td>
<td>106.7&nbsp;</td>
<td>106.4</td>
<td>105.5</td>
<td>0.28&nbsp;</td>
<td>1.14&nbsp;</td>
<td>105.5&nbsp;</td>
<td>103.5&nbsp;</td>
<td>102.0&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Price Index</td>
<td>109.4</td>
<td>109.2</td>
<td>107.1</td>
<td>0.18</td>
<td>2.15</td>
<td>108.3</td>
<td>106.2</td>
<td>104.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

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/060317c.jpg" width="353">
This morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics published January employment and unemployment data for US metropolitan areas. These are contained in Haver&#39;s EMPLR database. The database includes labor force, employment, unemployment and unemployment rates for states, Census regions, metro areas and smaller municipalities. The data for states and some of the metro areas are available seasonally adjusted, but the data shown here for 8 selected large US metro areas are all not seasonally adjusted.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060317d.jpg" width="353">
We spoke yesterday and the day before about labor market conditions in Europe and commented that such conditions can vary widely, even in neighboring regions there. The same is true here, as seen in the differences between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The economies of these two West Coast cities surely have differing characters, and this appears in the employment trends and the level of the unemployment rates. Employment growth in LA has generally been stronger, but the unemployment rate in San Francisco tends to be lower.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060317e.jpg" width="353">
Denver, with a fairly consistent growth trend over the past several years nevertheless has an unemployment rate slightly higher than the national average, at least in the latest month. We are pleasantly surprised by the good growth in our own locale, New York City, over the past two years, a nice cyclical rebound after the 2001 recession and the developments associated with 9/11.
Such major non-economic events can have a pointed economic impact, of course. Hurricane Katrina was devastating to the economy of New Orleans, and these figures show how dramatic that has been. Employment in the New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner MSA is off by nearly 200,000 from a year ago. The unemployment rate there is more than 50% higher than for the nation as a whole. Notably, though, employment has edged upward in the last three months. The increase totals only 2,900, but it&#39;s certainly a step in the right direction for that city.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060317f.jpg" width="353">
Finally, Houston may be a beneficiary of migration out of New Orleans. Even though the September &quot;reference week&quot; for labor market data was very soon after the storm, that month showed a marked and unusual increase in the Houston area labor force. Compared with the total drop in New Orleans, this 24,700 increase is just a fraction, but September has often been a month when the Houston labor force declines, implying that a special factor was in play. A boost to employment in Houston seems to have come just in January, when the normal post-Christmas drop in the number employed did not take place, but instead held just about steady with December. In the previous 16 years of data, the smallest decrease in January was 14,000.
It is often said that &quot;all politics is local&quot;. The widely varying developments in labor markets reported this week in both entire adjoining countries and individual US cities suggest that much of economics must be local too. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
Jan 2006
<th scope="col">Mo/Mo % Chg</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Yr/Yr % Chg</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">Unemployment Rate</td>
<td>Number Employed</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total US</td>
<td>5.1</td>
<td>141,481</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>138,682</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>0.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Los Angeles</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>6,117</td>
<td>-2.9</td>
<td>6,032</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>0.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">San Francisco</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>2,078</td>
<td>-3.1</td>
<td>2,067</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>-2.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Denver</td>
<td>5.3</td>
<td>1,238</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>1,222</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>1.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Houston</td>
<td>5.6</td>
<td>2,512</td>
<td>-0.0</td>
<td>2,422</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>0.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">New Orleans</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>394</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>582</td>
<td>-32.4</td>
<td>-9.6</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>0.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Chicago</td>
<td>5.6</td>
<td>4,466</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>4,440</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>-0.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Boston</td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td>2,317</td>
<td>-1.4</td>
<td>2,311</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>-1.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">New York</td>
<td>5.1</td>
<td>8,742</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>8,570</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

This morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics published January employment and unemployment data for US metropolitan areas. These are contained in Haver's EMPLR database. The database includes labor force, employment, unemployment and [...]

"All Economics Is Local": Labor Markets in US Cities

<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/060317b.jpg" width="353">
The index of consumer sentiment remained unchanged early this month versus February at 86.7, according to the University of Michigan. Consensus expectations for an increase to 88.0.
Sentiment figures are not seasonally adjusted and during the last ten years there has been a 76% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the y/y change in real consumer spending.
The current conditions index ticked up 0.6% m/m after a 4.3% decline during February. The index of personal finances rose just 0.9% (-3.4% y/y) after the 5.1% February collapse and the reading of buying conditions for large household goods remained unchanged (-0.6% y/y). Consumers&#39; assessment of gov&#39;t economic policy fell to the lowest level this year. The index level of 80 (-14.0% y/y) compared to an average of 88 during 2005.
Consumer expectations slipped 0.4% from February, the third consecutive monthly decline. The economic outlook deteriorated sharply with the index of expected business conditions during the next twelve months off 5.2% (-12.5% y/y).
The mean expected inflation rate for the next twelve months rose m/m to 3.8%, still well below the 5.5% expected in October &amp; September.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.The mid-month survey is based on telephone interviews with 250 households nationwide on personal finances and business and buying conditions. The survey is expanded to a total of 500 interviews at month end.
Consumer Sentiment, the Economy, and the News Media from the Federal Reserve board can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2004/200451/200451abs.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/USECON/@EF/@EF14/@EF1402/@EF1402.HTM">University of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col">March (p)</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</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">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>86.7</td>
<td>86.7</td>
<td>-6.4%</td>
<td>88.6</td>
<td>95.2</td>
<td>87.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>106.2</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>105.9</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>97.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Expectations</td>
<td>74.2</td>
<td>74.5</td>
<td>-10.4%</td>
<td>77.4</td>
<td>88.5</td>
<td>81.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The index of consumer sentiment remained unchanged early this month versus February at 86.7, according to the University of Michigan. Consensus expectations for an increase to 88.0. Sentiment figures are not seasonally adjusted and [...]

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Unchanged

<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/060317a.jpg" width="353">
Overall industrial output surged an expected 0.7% during February. The rise, however, was entirely due to a 7.9% rebound in utility output as winter temperatures returned to normal. Utility output had fallen 11.5% during the record warm January.
Factory sector production was unchanged following the upwardly revised 0.8% January increase and m/m declines in output were widespread amongst industries.
Motor vehicles &amp; parts fell 0.8% (-2.0% y/y) after a 2.4% spurt in January. Excluding motor vehicles, factory output inched up 0.1% (4.8% y/y). That increase very much reflected a 1.2% (19.0% y/y) jump in output of computer &amp; electronic components. Excluding both autos and high tech, factory output was unchanged (+3.6% y/y) during February.
Output of primary metals slipped 0.1% (+4.2% y/y) last month and the 0.5% (+4.6% y/y) decline in machinery output was the second in a row. Electrical equipment &amp; appliance output dropped 1.7% (+7.3% y/y) but furniture &amp; related products output rose 1.3% (-1.6% y/y).
The 0.2% decline (+1.5% y/y) in nondurables output reflected a 0.5% (+2.4% y/y) fall in apparel output and a 1.8% (-4.2% y/y) drop in petroleum &amp; coal production.
Total capacity utilization rose to 81.2% although factory sector utilization reversed a bit of the prior month&#39;s jump and fell to 80.4% versus an average 78.9% during 2005.
Greenspan&#39;s Unconventional View of the Long-Run Inflation/Output Trade-off from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is available <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/mt/20060101/cover.pdf"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EA/@EA.HTM">Production &amp; Capacity</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</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 Industrial Production</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; &nbsp; Consumer Goods</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; &nbsp; Business Equipment</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>10.4%</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
<td>9.3%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Capacity Utilization</td>
<td>81.2%</td>
<td>80.8%</td>
<td>80.0% (2/05)</td>
<td>80.1%</td>
<td>78.6%</td>
<td>75.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Overall industrial output surged an expected 0.7% during February. The rise, however, was entirely due to a 7.9% rebound in utility output as winter temperatures returned to normal. Utility output had fallen 11.5% during the record [...]

Industrial Production Up As Expected

<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/060317a.jpg" width="353">
Overall industrial output surged an expected 0.7% during February. The rise, however, was entirely due to a 7.9% rebound in utility output as winter temperatures returned to normal. Utility output had fallen 11.5% during the record warm January.
Factory sector production was unchanged following the upwardly revised 0.8% January increase and m/m declines in output were widespread amongst industries.
Motor vehicles &amp; parts fell 0.8% (-2.0% y/y) after a 2.4% spurt in January. Excluding motor vehicles, factory output inched up 0.1% (4.8% y/y). That increase very much reflected a 1.2% (19.0% y/y) jump in output of computer &amp; electronic components. Excluding both autos and high tech, factory output was unchanged (+3.6% y/y) during February.
Output of primary metals slipped 0.1% (+4.2% y/y) last month and the 0.5% (+4.6% y/y) decline in machinery output was the second in a row. Electrical equipment &amp; appliance output dropped 1.7% (+7.3% y/y) but furniture &amp; related products output rose 1.3% (-1.6% y/y).
The 0.2% decline (+1.5% y/y) in nondurables output reflected a 0.5% (+2.4% y/y) fall in apparel output and a 1.8% (-4.2% y/y) drop in petroleum &amp; coal production.
Total capacity utilization rose to 81.2% although factory sector utilization reversed a bit of the prior month&#39;s jump and fell to 80.4% versus an average 78.9% during 2005.
Greenspan&#39;s Unconventional View of the Long-Run Inflation/Output Trade-off from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is available <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/mt/20060101/cover.pdf"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EA/@EA.HTM">Production &amp; Capacity</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</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 Industrial Production</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; &nbsp; Consumer Goods</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; &nbsp; Business Equipment</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>10.4%</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
<td>9.3%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Capacity Utilization</td>
<td>81.2%</td>
<td>80.8%</td>
<td>80.0% (2/05)</td>
<td>80.1%</td>
<td>78.6%</td>
<td>75.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Consumer Sentiment Unchanged 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 17, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060317b.jpg" width="353">
The index of consumer sentiment remained unchanged early this month versus February at 86.7, according to the University of Michigan. Consensus expectations for an increase to 88.0.
Sentiment figures are not seasonally adjusted and during the last ten years there has been a 76% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the y/y change in real consumer spending.
The current conditions index ticked up 0.6% m/m after a 4.3% decline during February. The index of personal finances rose just 0.9% (-3.4% y/y) after the 5.1% February collapse and the reading of buying conditions for large household goods remained unchanged (-0.6% y/y). Consumers&#39; assessment of gov&#39;t economic policy fell to the lowest level this year. The index level of 80 (-14.0% y/y) compared to an average of 88 during 2005.
Consumer expectations slipped 0.4% from February, the third consecutive monthly decline. The economic outlook deteriorated sharply with the index of expected business conditions during the next twelve months off 5.2% (-12.5% y/y).
The mean expected inflation rate for the next twelve months rose m/m to 3.8%, still well below the 5.5% expected in October &amp; September.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.The mid-month survey is based on telephone interviews with 250 households nationwide on personal finances and business and buying conditions. The survey is expanded to a total of 500 interviews at month end.
Consumer Sentiment, the Economy, and the News Media from the Federal Reserve board can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2004/200451/200451abs.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/USECON/@EF/@EF14/@EF1402/@EF1402.HTM">University of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col">March (p)</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</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">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>86.7</td>
<td>86.7</td>
<td>-6.4%</td>
<td>88.6</td>
<td>95.2</td>
<td>87.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>106.2</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>105.9</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>97.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Expectations</td>
<td>74.2</td>
<td>74.5</td>
<td>-10.4%</td>
<td>77.4</td>
<td>88.5</td>
<td>81.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
"All Economics Is Local": Labor Markets in US Cities 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> March 17, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060317c.jpg" width="353">
This morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics published January employment and unemployment data for US metropolitan areas. These are contained in Haver&#39;s EMPLR database. The database includes labor force, employment, unemployment and unemployment rates for states, Census regions, metro areas and smaller municipalities. The data for states and some of the metro areas are available seasonally adjusted, but the data shown here for 8 selected large US metro areas are all not seasonally adjusted.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060317d.jpg" width="353">
We spoke yesterday and the day before about labor market conditions in Europe and commented that such conditions can vary widely, even in neighboring regions there. The same is true here, as seen in the differences between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The economies of these two West Coast cities surely have differing characters, and this appears in the employment trends and the level of the unemployment rates. Employment growth in LA has generally been stronger, but the unemployment rate in San Francisco tends to be lower.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060317e.jpg" width="353">
Denver, with a fairly consistent growth trend over the past several years nevertheless has an unemployment rate slightly higher than the national average, at least in the latest month. We are pleasantly surprised by the good growth in our own locale, New York City, over the past two years, a nice cyclical rebound after the 2001 recession and the developments associated with 9/11.
Such major non-economic events can have a pointed economic impact, of course. Hurricane Katrina was devastating to the economy of New Orleans, and these figures show how dramatic that has been. Employment in the New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner MSA is off by nearly 200,000 from a year ago. The unemployment rate there is more than 50% higher than for the nation as a whole. Notably, though, employment has edged upward in the last three months. The increase totals only 2,900, but it&#39;s certainly a step in the right direction for that city.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060317f.jpg" width="353">
Finally, Houston may be a beneficiary of migration out of New Orleans. Even though the September &quot;reference week&quot; for labor market data was very soon after the storm, that month showed a marked and unusual increase in the Houston area labor force. Compared with the total drop in New Orleans, this 24,700 increase is just a fraction, but September has often been a month when the Houston labor force declines, implying that a special factor was in play. A boost to employment in Houston seems to have come just in January, when the normal post-Christmas drop in the number employed did not take place, but instead held just about steady with December. In the previous 16 years of data, the smallest decrease in January was 14,000.
It is often said that &quot;all politics is local&quot;. The widely varying developments in labor markets reported this week in both entire adjoining countries and individual US cities suggest that much of economics must be local too. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
Jan 2006
<th scope="col">Mo/Mo % Chg</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Yr/Yr % Chg</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">Unemploy ment Rate</td>
<td>Number Employed</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total US</td>
<td>5.1</td>
<td>141,481</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>138,682</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>0.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Los Angeles</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>6,117</td>
<td>-2.9</td>
<td>6,032</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>0.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">San Francisco</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>2,078</td>
<td>-3.1</td>
<td>2,067</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>-2.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Denver</td>
<td>5.3</td>
<td>1,238</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>1,222</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>1.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Houston</td>
<td>5.6</td>
<td>2,512</td>
<td>-0.0</td>
<td>2,422</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>0.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">New Orleans</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>394</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>582</td>
<td>-32.4</td>
<td>-9.6</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>0.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Chicago</td>
<td>5.6</td>
<td>4,466</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>4,440</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>-0.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Boston</td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td>2,317</td>
<td>-1.4</td>
<td>2,311</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>-1.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">New York</td>
<td>5.1</td>
<td>8,742</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>8,570</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Even with expected tariff-induced increases in inflation, BCFF forecasters look for a more aggressive round of monetary easing

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

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

250513L4.jpg

250513M4.jpg

The Consumer Price Index rose 0.2% in April after easing 0.1% in March and rising 0.2% in February. A 0.3% rise had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The y/y increase in the headline CPI dropped to 2.3% from 2.4% in March, the weakest y/y gain since February 2021. It stood below the 9.1% peak in June 2022. The CPI excluding food & energy rose 0.2% in April following increases of 0.1% in March and 0.2% in February. A 0.3% rise had been expected. The 2.8% y/y gain remained the weakest rise in core prices in four years and below the 6.6% peak in September 2022.

Energy prices rose 0.7% (-3.7% y/y) last month after falling 2.4% in March. Gasoline prices slipped 0.1% (-11.7% y/y) after falling 6.3% in March. Fuel oil prices weakened 1.3% (-9.6% y/y) after falling 4.2% in March. Natural gas prices jumped 3.7% (15.7% y/y) following a 3.6% gain, and electricity prices gained 0.8% (3.6% y/y) after rising 0.9% in March.

Food prices eased 0.1% (+2.8% y/y) in April after a 0.4% March increase as egg prices fell 12.7% (+49.3% y/y) following a 5.9% gain. Meat, poultry & fish prices held steady (+3.4% y/y) after a 0.6% rise, while dairy product prices slipped 0.2% (+1.6% y/y) after a 1.0% March strengthening. Cereal & bakery product costs weakened 0.5% (unchanged y/y) after a 0.1% easing while fruit & vegetable prices dropped 0.4% (-0.9% y/y), the fifth decline in six months. Nonalcoholic beverage prices rose 0.7% (3.2% y/y) in April after rising 0.6% in March.

Goods prices less food and energy rose 0.1% both m/m and y/y in April after easing 0.1% in March. Prices of used cars and trucks fell 0.5% (+1.5% y/y) last month after falling 0.7% in March while new vehicle costs held steady (0.3% y/y) after edging up 0.1% in March. Apparel prices eased 0.2% (-0.7% y/y) following a 0.4% gain. Appliance prices increased 0.8% (-1.2% y/y) after a 0.1% easing. Home furnishings prices increased 0.2% (0.3% y/y) after holding steady in March. Recreation product costs rose 0.4% (-1.8% y/y) in April after falling 0.3%. Education & communication product costs rose 0.3% last month (-5.3% y/y) after rising 0.5% in March.

Services prices less energy moved up 0.3% (3.6% y/y) last month following a 0.1% March gain. Shelter prices rose 0.3% (4.0% y/y) last month after a 0.2% rise as owners’ equivalent rent of primary residences increased 0.4% (4.3% y/y), the same as in March. The cost of lodging away from home eased 0.1% (-1.4% y/y) after falling 3.5% in March. Rents of primary residences gained 0.3% (4.0% y/y) for the fifth consecutive month. Transportation service prices edged 0.1% higher (2.5% y/y) after falling 1.4% in March reflecting a 0.6% rise (6.4% y/y) in the cost of motor vehicle insurance. Public transportation costs declined 1.8% (-5.6% y/y) after falling 4.2% during March. The cost of medical services increased 0.5% (3.1% y/y), the same as in March, but the cost of recreation services fell 0.3% (3.6% y/y) after increasing 0.1% in March. Education & communication services prices fell 0.2% (+1.2% y/y) after rising 0.2%.

The Consumer Price figures can be found in Haver's **USECON** database. The expectations figure is contained in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250513N4.jpg

250513O4.jpg

- Annual total & core gains are the weakest in four-years.
- Energy costs move up but food prices slip.
- Core goods prices edge higher & service price gain picks up.

U.S. Consumer Price Index & Core Prices Rise Modestly in April

Winnie Tapasanun

250513T23.jpg

250513U23.jpg

The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index fell to 95.8 in April, the lowest level since October, after a 3.3-point decline to 97.4 in March, according to the Small Business Economic Trends survey conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business. This was the second successive month that the index was below the 51-year average of 98. The index was down from its recent peak of 105.1 in December but up from 89.7 in April 2024 and a low of 88.5 in March 2024. Six of the 10 index components fell, three rose, and one was unchanged. The NFIB Small Business Uncertainty Index declined to 92 in April, the lowest level since December, after an eight-point drop to 96 in March. The index, while down from its record high of 110 in October, was well above a low of 65 in November 2023 and its historical average of 68.

The outlook for business conditions in the next six months remained positive for the sixth consecutive month in the latest survey. The net balance of respondents expecting the economy to improve decreased to 15% in April, the lowest level since October, on top of a 16-point plunge to 21% in March; however, having remained significantly above a record low of -61% in June 2022. Expected real sales dropped to a net -1% in April after an 11-point slide to 3% in March, posting the first negative reading and the lowest since October. The latest figure was up from its recent low of -18% in August. A net -8% of respondents reported higher nominal sales in the past three months, up from -11% in March and registering the highest reading since September 2023. The latest result, however, was below the most recent positive reading of 1% in May 2022 and a peak of 9% in June 2021.

Plans to make capital outlays slid to 18% in April, the lowest level since April 2020, following a two-point increase to 21% in March. These numbers were down from their recent high of 28% in November and a high of 31% in October 2021. Plans to expand the business registered at 9% in April and March, the lowest reading since October, following 12% in February; the latest figure was down from its most recent high of 20% in December but up from a low of 2% in March 2023. Meanwhile, expected credit conditions declined to -7% in April, the lowest reading since September, from -4% in March; these readings were above a low of -11% in November 2023.

On the labor front, forty-seven percent of respondents reported that qualified workers to fill job openings were hard to find in April, unchanged from 47% in March. These numbers were below their recent high of 56% in August, a high of 57% in September 2023, and a peak of 62% in September 2021. A net 13% planned to increase employment in April, slightly up from 12% in March; it was below a high of 26% in May 2022 and a peak of 32% in August 2021. Notably, 34% reported positions not able to be filled in April, down from 40% in March and the lowest reading since September; these figures remained below a high of 51% in May 2022.

Overall earnings trends had remained in negative territory since December 2019. The figure improved to -21% in April, still a poor reading, following a four-point drop to -28% in March. These readings were up from a low of -37% in August; nevertheless, having remained below a high of -18% in March 2023 and a high of -5% in June 2021.

On the pricing front, inflation pressures, while trending down, remained at an inflationary level. The net percent of firms raising their average selling prices slipped to 25% in April, the lowest reading since January, after a six-point decline to 26% in March. These numbers were virtually unchanged from 25% in April 2024 but well below a high of 66% in March 2022. The percentage planning to raise prices eased to a three-month-low 28% in April following a one-point increase to 30% in March; these figures were above 26% in April 2024 but below a high of 33% in March 2024 and a high of 52% in March 2022.

Wage inflation, while relatively high, eased somewhat in the April survey. A net 33% of respondents raised compensation during the last three months, down from 38% reported in the March survey and the same reading as in February and January. It was down from a high of 46% in February 2023 and a peak of 50% in January 2022. A net 17% of firms planned to raise worker compensation in the next three months, down from 19% reported in March and the lowest reading since March 2021; these numbers were below a high of 28% in November, a high of 30% in November 2023, and a high of 32% in October 2022.

The quality of labor was reported as the single most important problem facing small businesses, as reported by 19% of NFIB members in April, March, and February. Taxes were reported as the next most important problem, with 16% reported in April vs. 18% in March. Inflation continued to be a problem facing small businesses, as reported by 14% in April; the figure was down from 16% in March and a peak of 37% in July 2022. Other concerns (in April vs. March) included insurance cost/availability (10% vs. 8%), poor sales (9% vs. 9%), government requirements (9% vs. 8%), the cost of labor (8% vs. 11%), and competition from large businesses (7% vs. 6%).

According to the Small Business Administration, there are 33 million small businesses in the United States, which employ 62 million workers. The NFIB surveys anywhere from 500 to 2000 respondents each month and the typical firm employs 10 people and reports gross sales of about $500,000 a year. The NFIB figures can be found in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database.

250513V23.jpg

250513W23.jpg

- Apr. NFIB Small Business Optimism Index down 1.6 pts. to 95.8; the fourth straight m/m fall.
- Uncertainty Index down 4 pts. to 92, the lowest since Dec.
- Expectations for economy down 6 pts. to 15%, the lowest since Oct.
- Expected real sales down 4 pts. to -1%, the first negative reading since Oct.
- Net percent of firms raising avg. selling prices down 1 pt. to a 3-month-low 25%.
- Quality of labor (19%), taxes (16%), and inflation (14%) are the top three business concerns.

U.S. NFIB Small Business Optimism Falls to a Six-month Low in April Amid Continued Uncertainty

250513C1.jpg

250513D1.jpg

Retail gasoline prices for all grades fell to an average $3.25 per gallon (-12.9% y/y) in the week ended May 12 after rising to $3.27 in the previous week, but	 remained above their low of $3.13 in the week of December 9. An earlier high was $3.79 in the week ending April 22, 2024. The all-time high of $5.11 occurred in the week ending June 13, 2022. The retail price for on-highway diesel fuel declined to $3.48 per gallon (-9.7% y/y) in the week of May 12 from $3.50 in the prior week. The latest diesel price stood well below a high of $4.63 in the week ending September 18, 2023 and a peak of $5.81 in the week ending June 20, 2022.

The price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil at $59.04 per barrel (-25.9% y/y) in the week ended May 9 compared to $59.64 per barrel in the prior week. Prices remained below a high of $91.45 in the week of September 29, 2023. The cost of crude oil peaked at $120.46 in the week of June 10, 2022. Yesterday, the price was $61.95 per barrel. The price of European Brent crude oil declined to $62.29 per barrel (-24.9% y/y) in the week of May 9 from $63.50 in the previous week. Prices remained well below a recent high of $95.61 in the week of September 29, 2023 and compared to a peak of $127.40 in the week of June 10, 2022. Yesterday the price was $65.28 per barrel.

Natural gas prices edged up to an average $3.19 per mmbtu (59.5% y/y) in the week ended May 9, after improving to $3.09/mmbtu in the prior week. Prices have been well below earlier highs for four weeks but were well above a low of $1.40/mmbtu in the week of March 15, 2024. Prices peaked at $9.56/mmbtu in the week of August 26, 2022. Yesterday’s price was $3.19/mmbtu.

Gasoline demand rose 3.5% y/y in the four weeks ending May 2 following a 3.2% y/y rise in the prior four weeks. Demand for all petroleum products eased 0.6% y/y in the four weeks ending May 2 after a 0.3% y/y rise in the previous four-week period. Crude oil input to refineries rose 0.4% y/y in the four weeks ending May 2 after a 0.1% y/y slip in the prior four weeks.

Gasoline inventories fell 1.0% y/y in the week ending May 2 after a 0.7% y/y fall in the week ending April 25. Residual fuel oil inventories fell 10.9% y/y in the week of May 2, after an 18.7% y/y fall in the prior week. Crude oil inventories rose 1.3% y/y in the week of May 2 after a 1.4% y/y rise in the previous week.

Measured in days’ supply, gasoline inventories fell w/w to 25.3 days in the week of May 2 from 25.5 days in the prior. The recent low was 22.9 days in the week of November 8. The supply of crude oil eased w/w to 27.6 days in the week of May 2 from 27.9 days in the prior week, and remained below a high of 31.9 days in the week of March 3, 2023.

These data are reported by the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy. The price and supply/demand data can be found in Haver’s **WEEKLY** & **USENERGY** database.

- Gasoline prices decline.
- Crude oil prices ease.
- Natural gas costs rise.

U.S. Energy Prices Are Mixed in Latest Week

Robert Brusca

250513E.jpg

Forecasting is an ordinary part of economic analysis. And to a large extent, it gets taken for granted as we realize different people are making different forecasts and that there always are differences. We come to accept that, and we realize that there may be some economists who are more optimistic and some who are more pessimistic, some who favor growth more, some who fear inflation more. There are almost always some sorts of biases involved when people make forecasts simply because it's very hard to eliminate bias completely no matter how hard an economist tries to be objective. At the very least, economists usually feel somewhat bound by the previous forecast that they made in order to provide some stability in the guidance that they present.

**The ZEW Forecasts**
In this month’s ZEW survey, there is an example of this with what I consider to be somewhat quizzical forecasts being offered by the ZEW financial experts, who are largely European experts, at a time that the United States is threatening tariffs. Now this, of course, makes the U.S. the aggressor in this campaign and according to the ZEW experts the U.S. is going to suffer from this more than European economies. However, the U.S. is much less trade-dependent than Europe and certainly far less dependent than Germany which is one of the most trade-dependent large, advanced economies in the world. We measure trade dependency by looking at exports plus imports as a percentage of GDP. By this measure, trade-dependency is around 90% to 95% of for Germany; U.S. dependency is around 30% to 35%. The ZEW experts see the tariff situation making the U.S. economy much worse off than the European or the German economy- why?

**Tariff impact**
To put this in perspective, in the U.S., high tariffs, if they are binding, will cause imported goods to be more expensive. U.S. firms and consumers will have the choice of deciding whether they want to pay the higher costs to consume those items or to replace them in consumption or their production process. In the case of consumers, it's probably easier because a consumer can switch from an expensive French champagne to a less expensive but still quite good California sparkling wine or Chardonnay- or pay the higher price and enjoy French champaign! However, if U.S. consumers shift, that is going to leave France with a lot of unsold champagne and they need to sell it someplace else and that's a problem since the U.S. is a huge high-income market; that’s the reason that it's sought after by so many countries who export to the United States. U.S. consumers may choose to be satisfied with a different product. In this example the French, or it could be the Germans, or anyone whose exports are distained because of higher prices, might find that they have goods piling up in the shelves that they are not selling. This could cause an unemployment problem that could really snowball- a more severe problem than drinking Chardonnay instead of French champaign! 

**The U.S. side**
On the U.S. side, if people continue to buy these goods, the U.S. will have more inflation that may cause the Fed to stop cutting rates. The Fed might even raise rates, and this could slow the economy down. However, as we know, tariffs are one-time increase in the price level and it's only if the Fed runs ‘bad monetary policy’ that the price bump caused by the tariffs would become inflation… inflation is a persisting increase in prices.

**The new ZEW in May**
In this new survey, we see the economic situation in May improving relatively substantially in the euro area, as well as worsening slightly in the U.S. and in Germany. We see macroeconomic expectations sharply higher in Germany in May and while they also improve substantially in the U.S., the U.S. is left with economic expectations that are weaker less than 5% of the time, while German macroeconomic expectations are above their historic median (above a ranking of 50%).

**Got inflation?**
Inflation expectations are falling in the euro area in May and in Germany and, while they edged slightly lower in the U.S., they rank very high - higher only 8% of the time in the U.S. Whereas inflation expectations are lower only about 20% of the time in the euro area and in Germany. What's interesting, is that we see a big decline in inflation expectations in the euro area and in Germany despite the fact that growth conditions either improve or hardly unchanged and macro-expectations for Germany get sharply higher and yet inflation is improving. This has to be viewed as a curiosity.

**Interest rates**
Short-term rate expectations in the euro area are more negative than they are in the U.S. with both the euro area and the U.S. having low rank standings for short-term interest rate expectations. Long-term rate expectations in Germany and the U.S. show a decline both in Germany and in the U.S., but the German rank-standing is at its 15th percentile and the U.S. standings in its 36th percentile. That, at least, matches with the inflation expectations outlook.

Through all this, stock markets are improving in May compared to April. The European stock market and the German market are doing better than they are than the U.S. on a queue standing basis. And the dollar is expected to get weaker.

250513.jpg

**Forecasts and contradictions**
It seems to me there are a lot of contradictions in these scenarios or forecasts and the Europeans are somewhat angry at the U.S. for having done what it did, and they are projecting that the U.S. will suffer a worse consequence basically because they don't like what the U.S. is doing. However, based on trade dependency, it would seem to me that Europe is far more at risk of an ugly outcome: its exports are at greater risk compared to U.S. imports being at greater risk. One mitigating factor, of course, is that many things have changed as the U.S. has made alterations on the geopolitical front by forcing Europe to accept a larger role in NATO, defending itself. This will increase military expenditure and will help to sustain economic growth in Europe in the face of whatever shock may come on the tariff side. However, at this time, there isn't that much of a defense industry in Europe to serve the build-up that they need, if they source goods out of the U.S. that's not going to stimulate European growth very much. However, it's likely that Europe will try to develop more of a domestic arms industry although it’s going to have to weigh that against the need to beef up armaments in the short-run.

**Lots of change afoot**
There's a lot of change afoot, and we see a lot of forecasts being made both by Europeans and by people in the U.S. that reflect the heavy dose of what they want to see rather than what they're probably going to see. A lot of that analysis swirls around the belief that free trade is something sacred that's being violated by tariffs and therefore these violations are going to create a lot of bad events. That viewpoint, of course, ignores the many ways in which free trade is already violated. And, of course, another set of pre-existing beliefs simply sees everything that Donald Trump does as wrong. Wishing or even hating is no way to run a forecasting exercise and so I've cautioned that people beware about the conclusions they draw especially in the wake of the tariff news which now has the U.S.-China animosity set aside and has some temporary abeyance of other tariffs in progress. The problem with being an economist is that you have to have a forecast, and you have to explain it, and make it public, and, of course, once you do that, if the facts suddenly change, you are left either having to keep your forecast (and hoping…) or having to embarrass yourself by shifting your forecast back to where it was before things changed. And this reflects where we are right now. There were a number of analyses that emerged about how we would have inflation, or we would have recession because these tariffs were huge and terrible and now it's the tariffs get peeled back and we see there's going to be a more reasoned approach. But there is still no permanence. Yet, economists with forecasts out there are gradually looking for a diplomatic way to soften some of the forecasts they have made without looking like a bobble-head doll on a cars dashboard as it encounters a bumping road. This also goes for some of the analysis of reports that we see as the Wall Street Journal's first take on today's CPI report in the U.S. was that there was evidence of tariff inflation although if you read the report the WSJ talks about how it was the best year-over-year inflation rate that we had seen in quite some time and up by only 0.2% month-to-month. So, which is it? When it's hard to make the headline of a report match the content of the story that it represents, you know there's something else going on. So be careful what you read and be more careful what you believe. There is a lot of bias and ideology out there. It is a lot just because we are human- but not all of it.

ZEW Experts Shift Forecasts Less Pessimistic on Europe

Tian Yong Woon

This week, we focus on US-China trade developments in light of the economies’ joint 90-day tariff pause announcement. The extent of the interim tariff cuts has surpassed investors’ expectations. As such, the cuts have understandably boosted sentiment in Chinese equity markets (chart 1), though sentiment had already been buoyed by the increasingly conciliatory tone in US-China communications leading up to the announcement. The tariff cuts are a significant reprieve for both economies. The US is likely to see reduced price pressures on producers and consumers in the near term, while China stands to gain from a temporary easing of growth drags amid ongoing domestic challenges (chart 2).

Turning to the hard numbers, China’s April trade readings were relatively resilient, partly due to significant front-loading ahead of the prior US-imposed 145% tariffs taking effect (chart 3). As shown in chart 4, sharp declines in shipments to the US were more than offset by rising exports to Asian partners, including ASEAN, India, and Taiwan. Looking ahead, with the tariff pause beginning around mid-May, we may not see a full month’s data capturing trade responses to the earlier steep tariffs.

Next, we turn to how investors and analysts are responding. In the May survey, our Blue Chip panellists continued to mark down growth forecasts across several economies relative to end-2024 expectations (chart 5). At the same time, they raised US inflation forecasts and lowered China inflation forecasts (chart 6). However, these forecasts are likely to see favourable revisions in future surveys—barring new adverse developments—especially in light of this week’s positive news.

**Latest US-China trade developments**
Financial market sentiment has remained fairly buoyant despite the flare-up in US-China trade tensions in April. Recent messaging from both sides has moved away from the fiery rhetoric of previous months, adopting a more conciliatory tone aimed at de-escalating rather than intensifying frictions. Encouragingly, developments earlier this week reinforced this shift: the US and China issued a joint statement agreeing to a 90-day cooling-off period as they pursue trade talks following a relationship “reset.” During this time, the US will reportedly reduce its 145% tariffs on Chinese imports to 30% by May 14, while China will lower its 125% tariffs on US imports to 10%. Markets have understandably reacted positively, as seen in chart 1, with this move representing a significant rollback of mutual tariffs and bringing rates much closer to their pre–“Liberation Day” baseline. As a result, the growth-dampening effects from elevated tariffs are now considerably more muted—though it is worth noting that these measures remain temporary.

250513T1.jpg

The latest developments are indeed cause for optimism, as neither the US nor China stood to benefit from maintaining steep, mutually applied tariffs. For China, this short-term reprieve will help ease what would have been another significant growth headwind, compounding an already challenging set of domestic issues. Among these, China continues to struggle with persistently low inflation—likely stemming from weak demand and a long-standing problem of excess supply, both of which have contributed to downward pressure on prices. This is particularly evident in producer prices, which have been falling for years now, as shown in chart 2. These underlying drivers likely explain why our Blue Chip survey panellists continue to expect weak price pressures in China this year—a topic discussed in more detail later. Also, the sustained price decline not only highlights China's oversupply problem but has also provoked frustration among trading partners who had to absorb the effects.

250513T2.jpg

**First round effects of US tariffs on China**
Moving next to initial hard numbers reflecting the effects of the US' 145% tariffs before the announced pause, China’s April trade data were released last week. Exports rose a strong 8.1% y/y, as shown in chart 3—well above expectations. This eased initial concerns that the US-imposed tariffs would severely hit trade. While the April export print beat forecasts, it was driven by several underlying factors. A key contributor was significant front-loading by importers ahead of the tariff implementation in mid-April, which likely offset the drop in shipments that followed. As a result, though April’s data capture the early impact of the steep US tariffs, they also reflect a surge in pre-tariff activity, making the figures somewhat noisy. On the import side, shipments to China declined modestly, extending the recent trend of weak import growth. Although the drop was less severe than expected, continued weakness in imports may reflect subdued domestic demand—a concerning signal.

250513T3.jpg

A closer look at the April data (chart 4) shows that China’s stronger-than-expected export performance was largely driven by shipments to ASEAN economies, India, and Taiwan, where exports posted double-digit y/y growth. This surge reflects several dynamics. First, it underscores the deep integration of regional supply chains and the critical role of Chinese inputs in broader manufacturing processes. Second, it points to these economies’ capacity to absorb some of China’s excess capacity—diverted from the US, which has become a less viable destination due to steep tariffs. However, it remains uncertain whether these markets can sustainably absorb such redirected trade flows. Exports to the EU and Japan also grew in April, though at a more modest pace. Overall, the surge in shipments to regional and European partners more than offset the sharp 21% y/y drop in exports to the US.

250513T4.jpg

**May Blue Chip survey outlook**
Next, we turn to investor and analyst expectations for global growth amid the seemingly unrelenting stream of trade developments between the US and its trading partners. The latest Blue Chip survey results continue to paint a bleak picture for global growth, with panellists having sharply downgraded their forecasts in the May survey compared to those expressed in December last year, as shown in chart 5. However, given the recent and substantial de-escalation in US-China trade tensions—and barring any new growth-negative developments—panellists may soon be compelled to revise their outlooks upward. Notably, the May survey did not capture this week’s positive trade breakthrough, and a significant portion of the tariff burden has now been temporarily lifted from both economies.

250513T5.jpg

Lastly, we examine investor and analyst expectations for inflation in light of US-China trade developments prior to this week’s positive news. Understandably, our Blue Chip panellists had significantly revised upward their inflation outlook for the US, given the potentially inflationary effects of the previously announced tariffs. In contrast, the inflation outlook for China has become increasingly pessimistic, largely due to the structural factors discussed in earlier sections. However, with the latest de-escalation in US-China trade tensions, expectations for US inflation—and even those for some other economies—now stand to be revised downward. Whether expectations for Chinese inflation can be meaningfully adjusted upward remains uncertain. Looking further ahead, attention will also turn to US President Trump’s other 90-day pause, specifically concerning his “reciprocal” tariffs on economies other than China. The outcome of these trade discussions will be critical in determining the trajectory of future inflation expectations.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

Inflation at the Producer Level Heats up in Germany

ECRI Leading Index: Momentum Strength Diminished

Leading Economic Indicators Fell

Leading Economic Indicators Fell

"All Economics Is Local": Labor Markets in US Cities

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Unchanged

Industrial Production Up As Expected

Industrial Production Up As Expected