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/060714j.jpg" width="353">
Total business inventories increased 0.8% during May, about matched the prior month&#39;s strong gain and easily surpassed Consensus expectations for a 0.4% rise.
Retail inventories jumped 1.6% after a slight slip during April. Motor vehicle inventories surged 3.2% (4.1% y/y) while less autos, retail inventories rose a strong 0.8% led by a 1.1% (6.3% y/y) jump in apparel. General merchandise inventories firmed 0.7% (-0.7% y/y) but furniture inventories rose just 0.2% (5.2% y/y).
Wholesale inventories jumped 0.8% as petroleum inventories surged 7.1% (35.9% y/y). Durables rose 0.8% (8.7% y/y). During the last ten years there has been a 67% correlation between the y/y change in wholesale inventories and the change in imports of nonpetroleum goods.
Factory sector inventories slipped modestly after a 1.0% April spike.
The inventory to sales ratio for total business slipped back to its low 1.25 as business sales jumped 1.4% (8.8% y/y).

<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/@ED06/@ED0601/@ED0601.HTM">Business Inventories</a></th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</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</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Retail</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Retail excl. Autos</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>9.8%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>6.9%</td>
<td>-7.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Total business inventories increased 0.8% during May, about matched the prior month's strong gain and easily surpassed Consensus expectations for a 0.4% rise. Retail inventories jumped 1.6% after a slight slip during April. Motor [...]

U.S. Business Inventories Gain

<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/060714l.jpg" width="353">
Total import prices rose just 0.1% last month after a 1.7% surge during May and about matched Consensus expectations for a 0.2% advance.
Lower petroleum prices held back the increase with a 1.4% decline. That likely will not be repeated in July given that Brent crude oil prices this month have ranged between $72 and $76 per barrel versus a June average of $68.56.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714k.jpg" width="353">
Import prices less petroleum rose 0.4% after an upwardly revised 0.7% May increase. The rise was led by a 1.1% (11.2% y/y) increase in nonoil industrial supplies such as a 9.3% (66.4% y/y) spike in nonferrous metals prices.
Capital goods prices rose 0.3% (-1.1% y/y) but excluding computers, capital goods prices rose 0.5% (1.2% y/y). Prices for nonauto consumer goods inched up 0.1% for the second consecutive month (-0.1% y/y).
During the last ten years there has been a 66% (negative) correlation between the nominal trade-weighted exchange value of the US dollar vs. major currencies and the y/y change in non oil import prices. The correlation is a lower 47% against a broader basket of currencies and a lower 57% against the real value of the dollar.
Export prices rose a firm 0.8% led by a 1.8% gain in industrial supplies (13.3% y/y) prices.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E807/@E807.HTM">Import/Export Prices (NSA)</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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">Import - All Commodities</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>7.2%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Petroleum</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>32.6%</td>
<td>37.6%</td>
<td>30.5%</td>
<td>21.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non-petroleum</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Export - All Commodities</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Total import prices rose just 0.1% last month after a 1.7% surge during May and about matched Consensus expectations for a 0.2% advance. Lower petroleum prices held back the increase with a 1.4% decline. That likely will not be [...]

Import Prices Up Just 0.1%

<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/060714h.jpg" width="353">
Consumer sentiment early this month reversed part of its June improvement and sagged 2.2% to 83.0, according to the University of Michigan. The decline ran counter to Consensus expectations for a modest increase to 85.5.
During the last ten years there has been a 77% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the y/y change in real consumer spending.
The reading of current economic conditions reversed about half of the June increase with a 4.0% decline. The index of current personal finances reversed nearly all of the prior month&#39;s rise with an 8.0% (-14.8% y/y) decline though buying conditions for large household goods fell a modest 1.3% (-8.7% y/y).<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714i.jpg" width="353">
Expectations for the economy fell a modest 0.6% but it was the fifth decline his year. It was led by a 5.7% (-25.9% y/y) decline in 12 month expected business conditions although 5 year expected conditions improved modestly, the first gain in four months, as did expected personal finances.
Consumers&#39; opinion about gov&#39;t economic policy recovered 5.4% m/m (-15.2% y/y), the first monthly increase since March while expected inflation during the next year fell sharply to 3.7%, its lowest since February. The five to ten year expected rate of inflation also fell to 3.2%, its lowest in over a year.
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.

<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">July (Prelim.)</th>
<th scope="col">June</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>83.0</td>
<td>84.9</td>
<td>-14.0%</td>
<td>88.6</td>
<td>95.2</td>
<td>87.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>100.8</td>
<td>105.0</td>
<td>-11.2%</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>71.6</td>
<td>72.0</td>
<td>-16.3%</td>
<td>77.4</td>
<td>88.5</td>
<td>81.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Consumer sentiment early this month reversed part of its June improvement and sagged 2.2% to 83.0, according to the University of Michigan. The decline ran counter to Consensus expectations for a modest increase to 85.5. During the [...]

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Sagged

<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/060714a.jpg" width="353">
The 2Q &#39;06 Composite Business Index published by the Manufacturers&#39; Alliance/MAPI fell moderately to 71 from 74 the prior quarter. The figure, however, was higher than the year earlier level and so far in 2006 the average reading of 73 compared favorably to last year&#39;s average of 70.
During the last ten years there has been a 69% correlation between the Composite Index Level and quarterly growth in US factory sector output.
The current orders index fell to 81 from 85 in 1Q and the average this year equaled that for all of last year. Since early 2004 the orders index has trended lower from a high of 93.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714b.jpg" width="353">
The 2Q export orders index fell to 72 from 78 in 1Q and from 74 averaged in 2004 &amp; 2005. During the last ten years there has been a 59% correlation between the export orders index and quarterly growth in real US exports.
The profit margins index fell sharply to 74 from 82 in 1Q. Both figures were up sharply from the 2005 average of 65.Capital spending intentions for the coming year moved higher q/q with the index at a record high of 86. During the last ten years there has been a 75% correlation between the capital spending index a q/q growth in business investment.
The survey of 60 senior financial executives representing a broad range of manufacturing industries reflects the views on current &amp; future business conditions. The business outlook index is a weighted sum of shipments, backlogs, inventories, and profit margin indexes.
For the latest US Business Outlook from the MAPI click <a href="http://www.mapi.net/html/prelease.cfm?release_id=2316">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveys/@SE/@SE.HTM">Manufacturers&#39; Alliance/MAPI Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">2Q &#39;06</th>
<th scope="col">1Q &#39;06</th>
<th scope="col">2Q &#39;05</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Business Index</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>67</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The 2Q '06 Composite Business Index published by the Manufacturers' Alliance/MAPI fell moderately to 71 from 74 the prior quarter. The figure, however, was higher than the year earlier level and so far in 2006 the average reading of [...]

MAPI Business Outlook Survey Off Moderately

<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/060714c.jpg" width="353">
US retail sales fell 0.1% last month following an unrevised 0.1% up tick during May. It was the first m/m decline since February and it resulted in a 3.7% (AR) increase for 2Q after the 13.4% jump the prior quarter. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% increase in sales last month.
Nonauto retail sales increased an expected 0.3% but the rise during May was revised up to 0.7%. Nonauto retail spending grew 6.6% (AR) last quarter after an 11.4% rise during 1Q.
Lower sales by motor vehicle &amp; parts dealers led last month&#39;s sales decline. A 1.4% drop (-3.5% y/y) was the third m/m decline this year despite a 1.3% rise in June unit auto sales to 16.30M.
Building material sales fell further in June. The 1.0% (+8.8% y/y) m/m decline was the third in a row and the fifth in the last seven months.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714d.jpg" width="353">
Sales at gasoline stations increased another 1.1% (20.4% y/y) even though retail gasoline prices fell 0.8% m/m during June to an average of $2.89 per gallon. Gas prices have since jumped to $2.97.
Less gasoline, nonauto retail sales rose 0.1% (7.0% y/y) after a 0.6% May increase that was double the rise estimated initially. During 2Q, nonauto retail sales less gasoline increased 3.3% (AR) after a 12.2% spurt during 1Q.
Sales of discretionary items were firm last month. Sales of furniture, electronics &amp; appliances increased 0.4% (6.8% y/y) after a 0.3% gain during May which was initially estimated as a 0.1% decline. General merchandise stores rose 0.3% (4.6% y/y) after an unrevised like gain during May and apparel store sales also rose 0.3% (4.9% y/y) though the prior month&#39;s increase was doubled to 0.4%. Sales of nonstore retailers (internet &amp; catalogue) slipped 0.3% (12.3% y/y) after an upwardly revised 3.0% May spike.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/usecon/@ED/@ED04/@ED0401/@ED0401.HTM">Retail Sales &amp; Food Services</a></td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>7.2%</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding Autos</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>8.5%</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td>7.2%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

US retail sales fell 0.1% last month following an unrevised 0.1% up tick during May. It was the first m/m decline since February and it resulted in a 3.7% (AR) increase for 2Q after the 13.4% jump the prior quarter. Consensus [...]

U.S. Retail Sales Lower Due To Weakness in Autos & Housing

<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/060714c.jpg" width="353">
US retail sales fell 0.1% last month following an unrevised 0.1% up tick during May. It was the first m/m decline since February and it resulted in a 3.7% (AR) increase for 2Q after the 13.4% jump the prior quarter. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% increase in sales last month.
Nonauto retail sales increased an expected 0.3% but the rise during May was revised up to 0.7%. Nonauto retail spending grew 6.6% (AR) last quarter after an 11.4% rise during 1Q.
Lower sales by motor vehicle &amp; parts dealers led last month&#39;s sales decline. A 1.4% drop (-3.5% y/y) was the third m/m decline this year despite a 1.3% rise in June unit auto sales to 16.30M.
Building material sales fell further in June. The 1.0% (+8.8% y/y) m/m decline was the third in a row and the fifth in the last seven months.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714d.jpg" width="353">
Sales at gasoline stations increased another 1.1% (20.4% y/y) even though retail gasoline prices fell 0.8% m/m during June to an average of $2.89 per gallon. Gas prices have since jumped to $2.97.
Less gasoline, nonauto retail sales rose 0.1% (7.0% y/y) after a 0.6% May increase that was double the rise estimated initially. During 2Q, nonauto retail sales less gasoline increased 3.3% (AR) after a 12.2% spurt during 1Q.
Sales of discretionary items were firm last month. Sales of furniture, electronics &amp; appliances increased 0.4% (6.8% y/y) after a 0.3% gain during May which was initially estimated as a 0.1% decline. General merchandise stores rose 0.3% (4.6% y/y) after an unrevised like gain during May and apparel store sales also rose 0.3% (4.9% y/y) though the prior month&#39;s increase was doubled to 0.4%. Sales of nonstore retailers (internet &amp; catalogue) slipped 0.3% (12.3% y/y) after an upwardly revised 3.0% May spike.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/usecon/@ED/@ED04/@ED0401/@ED0401.HTM">Retail Sales &amp; Food Services</a></td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>7.2%</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding Autos</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>8.5%</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td>7.2%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Consumer Sentiment Sagged 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 14, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714h.jpg" width="353">
Consumer sentiment early this month reversed part of its June improvement and sagged 2.2% to 83.0, according to the University of Michigan. The decline ran counter to Consensus expectations for a modest increase to 85.5.
During the last ten years there has been a 77% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the y/y change in real consumer spending.
The reading of current economic conditions reversed about half of the June increase with a 4.0% decline. The index of current personal finances reversed nearly all of the prior month&#39;s rise with an 8.0% (-14.8% y/y) decline though buying conditions for large household goods fell a modest 1.3% (-8.7% y/y).<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714i.jpg" width="353">
Expectations for the economy fell a modest 0.6% but it was the fifth decline his year. It was led by a 5.7% (-25.9% y/y) decline in 12 month expected business conditions although 5 year expected conditions improved modestly, the first gain in four months, as did expected personal finances.
Consumers&#39; opinion about gov&#39;t economic policy recovered 5.4% m/m (-15.2% y/y), the first monthly increase since March while expected inflation during the next year fell sharply to 3.7%, its lowest since February. The five to ten year expected rate of inflation also fell to 3.2%, its lowest in over a year.
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.

<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">July (Prelim.)</th>
<th scope="col">June</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>83.0</td>
<td>84.9</td>
<td>-14.0%</td>
<td>88.6</td>
<td>95.2</td>
<td>87.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>100.8</td>
<td>105.0</td>
<td>-11.2%</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>71.6</td>
<td>72.0</td>
<td>-16.3%</td>
<td>77.4</td>
<td>88.5</td>
<td>81.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Import Prices Up Just 0.1% 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 14, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714l.jpg" width="353">
Total import prices rose just 0.1% last month after a 1.7% surge during May and about matched Consensus expectations for a 0.2% advance.
Lower petroleum prices held back the increase with a 1.4% decline. That likely will not be repeated in July given that Brent crude oil prices this month have ranged between $72 and $76 per barrel versus a June average of $68.56.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714k.jpg" width="353">
Import prices less petroleum rose 0.4% after an upwardly revised 0.7% May increase. The rise was led by a 1.1% (11.2% y/y) increase in nonoil industrial supplies such as a 9.3% (66.4% y/y) spike in nonferrous metals prices.
Capital goods prices rose 0.3% (-1.1% y/y) but excluding computers, capital goods prices rose 0.5% (1.2% y/y). Prices for nonauto consumer goods inched up 0.1% for the second consecutive month (-0.1% y/y).
During the last ten years there has been a 66% (negative) correlation between the nominal trade-weighted exchange value of the US dollar vs. major currencies and the y/y change in non oil import prices. The correlation is a lower 47% against a broader basket of currencies and a lower 57% against the real value of the dollar.
Export prices rose a firm 0.8% led by a 1.8% gain in industrial supplies (13.3% y/y) prices.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E807/@E807.HTM">Import/Export Prices (NSA)</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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">Import - All Commodities</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>7.2%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Petroleum</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>32.6%</td>
<td>37.6%</td>
<td>30.5%</td>
<td>21.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non-petroleum</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Export - All Commodities</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Business Inventories Gain 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 14, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714j.jpg" width="353">
Total business inventories increased 0.8% during May, about matched the prior month&#39;s strong gain and easily surpassed Consensus expectations for a 0.4% rise.
Retail inventories jumped 1.6% after a slight slip during April. Motor vehicle inventories surged 3.2% (4.1% y/y) while less autos, retail inventories rose a strong 0.8% led by a 1.1% (6.3% y/y) jump in apparel. General merchandise inventories firmed 0.7% (-0.7% y/y) but furniture inventories rose just 0.2% (5.2% y/y).
Wholesale inventories jumped 0.8% as petroleum inventories surged 7.1% (35.9% y/y). Durables rose 0.8% (8.7% y/y). During the last ten years there has been a 67% correlation between the y/y change in wholesale inventories and the change in imports of nonpetroleum goods.
Factory sector inventories slipped modestly after a 1.0% April spike.
The inventory to sales ratio for total business slipped back to its low 1.25 as business sales jumped 1.4% (8.8% y/y).

<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/@ED06/@ED0601/@ED0601.HTM">Business Inventories</a></th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</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</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Retail</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Retail excl. Autos</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>9.8%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>6.9%</td>
<td>-7.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
MAPI Business Outlook Survey Off Moderately   
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 14, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714a.jpg" width="353">
The 2Q &#39;06 Composite Business Index published by the Manufacturers&#39; Alliance/MAPI fell moderately to 71 from 74 the prior quarter. The figure, however, was higher than the year earlier level and so far in 2006 the average reading of 73 compared favorably to last year&#39;s average of 70.
During the last ten years there has been a 69% correlation between the Composite Index Level and quarterly growth in US factory sector output.
The current orders index fell to 81 from 85 in 1Q and the average this year equaled that for all of last year. Since early 2004 the orders index has trended lower from a high of 93.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714b.jpg" width="353">
The 2Q export orders index fell to 72 from 78 in 1Q and from 74 averaged in 2004 &amp; 2005. During the last ten years there has been a 59% correlation between the export orders index and quarterly growth in real US exports.
The profit margins index fell sharply to 74 from 82 in 1Q. Both figures were up sharply from the 2005 average of 65.Capital spending intentions for the coming year moved higher q/q with the index at a record high of 86. During the last ten years there has been a 75% correlation between the capital spending index a q/q growth in business investment.
The survey of 60 senior financial executives representing a broad range of manufacturing industries reflects the views on current &amp; future business conditions. The business outlook index is a weighted sum of shipments, backlogs, inventories, and profit margin indexes.
For the latest US Business Outlook from the MAPI click <a href="http://www.mapi.net/html/prelease.cfm?release_id=2316">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveys/@SE/@SE.HTM">Manufacturers&#39; Alliance/MAPI Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">2Q &#39;06</th>
<th scope="col">1Q &#39;06</th>
<th scope="col">2Q &#39;05</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Business Index</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>67</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Bank of Japan Raises Key Interest Rates 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> July 14, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714e.jpg" width="353">
The Bank of Japan announced a policy change today (Friday). The best way to describe it is to quote the Bank&#39;s own text:&quot;At the Monetary Policy Meeting held today, the Bank of Japan decided, by a unanimous vote, to change the guideline for money market operations for the intermeeting period, effective immediately from the announcement of the decision. &quot;The Bank of Japan will encourage the uncollateralized overnight call rate to remain at around 0.25 percent.&quot; This reflects basically a 25-basis-point increase in that key money market interest rate. The Bank also raised its discount rate from 0.1% to 0.4%. This rate covers bank borrowing directly from the Bank of Japan under its lending facility; at the same time, waivers of extra fees -- &quot;add-on rates&quot; -- will continue for frequent users of the facility, so the Bank is not trying to discourage its use. The Bank will also continue buying long-term Japanese government bonds in an attempt to restrain any general rise in long-term interest rates.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714f.jpg" width="353">
This is the first increase in the BoJ&#39;s basic rate structure since July 2000, when the call rate was also raised from near zero to 0.25%. The strength of the Japanese economy was fairly tenuous then, though, and this hike was reversed in March 2001. Now, in contrast, the BoJ believes that &quot;Japan&#39;s economy continues to expand moderately, with domestic and external demand and also the corporate and household sectors well in balance. The economy is likely to expand for a sustained period.&quot; Moreover, &quot;the year-on-year rate of change in consumer prices is projected to continue to follow a positive trend.&quot;
The Bank remains somewhat skeptical, however, and concludes its announcement with the assessment that it expects to &quot;adjust the level of the policy interest rate gradually . . . In this process, an accommodative monetary environment ensuing from very low interest rates will probably be maintained for some time.&quot;
The moderate language of the statement and the implication that further rate increases would come only slowly was milder than some market participants were anticipating, apparently, and they actually traded the yen downward on the day. The stock market fell as well, but this may be related to declines in other world markets that are in response to the violence in the Middle East and the accompanying pressure on oil prices.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714g.jpg" width="353">
We&#39;d probably agree with the BoJ, though, in their cautious attitude. Just on Tuesday, Louise Curley discussed &quot;wavering&quot; consumer sentiment in the country and on June 30, we expressed some discomfort of our own with evident hesitation in labor markets. These caveats notwithstanding, the Japanese economy is in the best condition it has seen in a good many years. The second graph here illustrates this with the Cabinet Office&#39;s index of coincident indicators and the unemployment rate. Two other conditions have changed over the past several months. Bank lending has begun to grow again. In the third graph, we see the nice uptrend developing in loans at domestic banks. At the time of the last BoJ rate hike in 2000, the banks were still under pressure from distressed loans and their loan portfolios were contracting, a process that continued until June of last year. Additionally, prices are rising, with positive year-on-year changes in the CPI now for five consecutive months. As Louise noted in her discussion Tuesday, people are now concerned that there might be more inflation than they want!

</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/060713e.jpg" width="353">
We continue to marvel at the low non-energy inflation rates in many countries. Today, June CPI was reported by two major countries, France and Germany, and the year-on-year pace excluding energy remains quite modest in both. For France, the monthly CPI was unchanged following a 0.3% increase in May. The 12-month rate is just 1.2%, about even with 2005&#39;s performance and only half of the increase in 2003. The overall index rose 0.1% in June and 1.9% year-on-year.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060713f.jpg" width="353">
For Germany, the ex-energy monthly increase was 0.2%; this came after three consecutive increases of just 0.1% and the year-on-year rate is a mere 0.9%. This last has been less than 1.0% every month this year, with January and May as low as 0.7%. The total index rose 0.3% in June and stands 2.0% above June 2005.
In part, the modest CPI trends in both countries owe to restrained health care costs. These are much more administered sectors than in the US, of course, and except for periods of regulated changes, their price indexes tend not to move much. Communications costs continue to fall in both places as technology helps them decline in many countries. The culture and recreation sectors are also soft in France and Germany. In Germany, household goods and clothing remain weak, and in France they are running on a flat trend.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060713g.jpg" width="353">
Sectors pushing upward on the price indexes include housing, transportation and travel. In each nation, the &quot;housing&quot; category, as in the US, includes fuel and electricity. So the pattern of relative inflation performance among various CPI components describes a situation that still confines the dramatic increases in energy to the sectors of each economy that are directly impacted: home heating, cooling, and lighting, driving and other transportation and other travel-related expenses. Another source of upward pressure in both France and Germany is food prices, but they are picking up from very slow rates; food inflation remains less than total inflation in both countries.
Haver maintains these price data in two different databases. Each country has a database, FRANCE and GERMANY, respectively, that contains data as published by local country sources. We also have &quot;G10&quot;, a collection of data for a number of major countries (actually several more than 10). In that database, we make some calculations of our own on selected series. In the case of the CPI, we seasonally adjust more components than the statistical agencies of each country do. Another example is the calculation of GDP in US dollars, which is not usually published by the local country. So while there is generally more underlying detail in the country-sourced database, G10 contains some more analytical data that are useful for international comparisons and other purposes.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/G10/G10.HTM">% Changes, SA*</a></th>
<th scope="col">June 2006</th>
<th scope="col">May 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Year/Year</th>
December/December
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2005</td>
<td>2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">France: Total CPI</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>2.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Energy</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>2.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany: Total CPI</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>1.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Energy</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>1.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

We continue to marvel at the low non-energy inflation rates in many countries. Today, June CPI was reported by two major countries, France and Germany, and the year-on-year pace excluding energy remains quite modest in both. For [...]

June CPI Stays Low in France & Germany

<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/060713b.jpg" width="353">
The U.S. federal government ran a budget surplus in June, as it usually does. The as expected figure of $20.5B narrowed the FY06 to-date budget deficit to $206.5B versus a deficit of $249.4B during the first nine months of FY05.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060713c.jpg" width="353">
Growth in &#39;06 net revenues FYTD versus the first nine months of FY05 remained strong at 12.8%. Individual income tax receipts (44% of total receipts) rose 14.5% FYTD as withheld taxes rose 8.4% due to improved job markets and non-withheld taxes surged 21.7%. The improved job market also lifted employment taxes (36% of total receipts) 6.3% y/y.
Corporate income taxes (10% of total receipts) surged 27.0% y/y during FY06&#39;s first nine monthsand estate &amp; gift taxes rose 15.1% y/y.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060713d.jpg" width="353">
U.S. net outlays rose 8.8% FYTD versus &#39;05. Defense spending (19% of total outlays) rose 7.8% during the first nine months of FY06 versus &#39;05.Medicare spending (12% of total outlays) jumped 16.5% and spending on social security (21% of total outlays) remained strong at 5.8%. Spending on income security grew just 2.7%.
Social Security and Medicare : the impending fiscal challenge from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City can be found <a href="http://www.kansascityfed.org/Publicat/econrev/PDF/1q06hakk.pdf"> here</a>.
The Mid-Session Review of the U.S. Government Budget for FY 2007 is available <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/07msr.pdf">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E1/@E106/@E10602/@E10602.HTM">US Government Finance</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">FY 2005</th>
<th scope="col">FY 2004</th>
<th scope="col">FY 2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Budget Balance</td>
<td>$20.5B</td>
<td>$-42.8B</td>
<td>$22.9B (6/05)</td>
<td>$-318.3B</td>
<td>$-412.7B</td>
<td>$-377.6B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Net Revenues</td>
<td>$264.4B</td>
<td>$192.7B</td>
<td>12.6%</td>
<td>14.5%</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Net Outlays</td>
<td>$243.9B</td>
<td>$235.5B</td>
<td>15.1%</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The U.S. federal government ran a budget surplus in June, as it usually does. The as expected figure of $20.5B narrowed the FY06 to-date budget deficit to $206.5B versus a deficit of $249.4B during the first nine months of FY05. [...]

June U.S. Budget Surplus As Expected

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

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

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

PMIs show still-elevated but slowing US inflation

AI boosting US investment in data centers

US productivity growth has been significantly faster than in other major economies

Consumers' short-term US inflation expectations still elevated while longer-term expectations of financial markets are steady

US financial markets have gotten used to elevated policy uncertainty

FOMC now expects more rate cuts going forward than in June

China gaining ASEAN exports while US exports slump

Job openings less than the number unemployed in July for first time since 2021

Reaccelerating goods price inflation along with sticky services inflation clouds the outlook

Falling oil prices aren't pulling down inflation expectations, pointing to a boost from increased tariffs

Equity market exuberance outpacing macroeconomic data

Apart from Japan, Blue Chip forecasters expect further sizable monetary easing

US production rebounded in Q2, but demand continued to slow

US leader, Germany trailer for real GDP growth over past 3 years

Negative US inflation surprises leading G10 down

Deflation continues in China

Incoming data surprising on downside in US; positive surprises elsewhere

FOMC expects more inflation and less growth than in March

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

Service Health

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

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Featured Data Additions

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Tian Yong Woon

This week, we assess Asia through a risk lens, given the recent flare-ups across the region. Japan–China tensions, following Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi’s recent remarks on Taiwan, have prompted some retaliatory measures from China, including travel advisories against visiting Japan. This raises the risk of a dent to Japan’s tourism income this year, given the significance of aggregate Chinese tourism expenditure (chart 1), although any such impact would come at a time when Japan is already grappling with the effects of overtourism. Beyond Japan–China relations, investors are also bracing for the Bank of Japan’s (BoJ) final scheduled policy decision of the year, where a rate hike is expected despite Takaichi’s pro-growth fiscal stance. This expectation reflects ongoing yen weakness (chart 2), alongside encouraging results from Japan’s Q3 Tankan survey, among other factors. While the anticipated hike is not, in itself, a risk, the associated increase in financing costs—coupled with the likelihood of higher government bond issuance to support growth objectives—adds to investor concerns.

Risks are also evident in China, particularly after the November data docket showed a continued deterioration in growth across multiple sectors (chart 3). While China’s 5% growth target for the year remains within reach, achieving it appears to hinge on a narrow set of growth drivers, notably trade. On this front, China has defied earlier investor concerns to record a substantial widening of its trade surplus this year, despite a worsening bilateral trade balance with the US (chart 4). However, while supportive of growth, this development risks drawing increased pushback from non-US trading partners that have been absorbing China’s excess capacity.

Elevated risks are also present elsewhere in Asia, particularly in Southeast Asia, where renewed military clashes between Thailand and Cambodia have once again pushed bilateral tensions to the fore (chart 5). Thailand additionally faces political uncertainty ahead of early elections, following Prime Minister Anutin’s dissolution of parliament last week. Lastly, we turn to semiconductor- and AI-related risks, which are especially pertinent to Asia given the dominance—and reliance—of Taiwan and South Korea in the sector. A key risk lies in the current extent of market optimism surrounding future AI-related earnings (chart 6), suggesting greater scope for disappointment than for further upside surprises.

**Japan-China tensions**
Geopolitics will likely remain front and centre in Asia heading into the new year,  with several flashpoints carrying the risk of broader regional spillovers. One such case is the recent flare-up in tensions between China and Japan, following new Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi’s parliamentary remarks on Taiwan. Since then, Chinese authorities have rolled out a series of measures — urging Chinese citizens to avoid travelling to or studying in Japan, reinstating an import ban on Japanese seafood, among others. While none of these steps are particularly substantial on their own, they underscore a rapidly deteriorating bilateral dynamic. The economic implications are not trivial. As shown in chart 1, spending by Chinese tourists has historically made up a significant share of Japan’s total inbound tourism receipts — roughly a quarter in recent quarters — with especially strong concentrations in certain regions such as Osaka. Although the absence of Mainland Chinese tourists has been keenly felt since tensions escalated, early indications suggest that increased arrivals from other countries have helped offset some of the shortfall. More recently, a series of close military encounters between China and Japan has further heightened concerns. The risk of miscalculation has grown, raising the possibility of an inadvertent escalation at a time when geopolitical sensitivities in the region are already elevated.


251215T1.jpg

**Japan**
Japan–China tensions aside, investors will also be focused on the Bank of Japan’s upcoming monetary policy meeting this week, the last of the year. After Governor Ueda’s recent remarks, markets are now expecting a 25 bps rate hike. This has been especially evident in the bond market, where yields have risen sharply in recent weeks (chart 2). The move partly reflects expectations of tighter policy, but also concerns Prime Minister Takaichi’s more expansionary fiscal stance. The recently submitted supplementary budget points to increased government bond issuance, adding supply pressure, weighing on bond prices, and pushing yields higher. The rise in yields also poses a risk when combined with increased bond issuance, as this implies higher financing costs for the government. A hike this month is still expected despite the government’s loose fiscal tilt, given yen weakness and recent readings of softer inflation. However, the outlook for any additional tightening beyond December remains uncertain. With the new year approaching and annual spring wage negotiations on the horizon, the BoJ will need further confirmation on wages and inflation before moving again. Meanwhile, the ongoing Japan–China frictions, while not yet generating major economic spillovers, remain a meaningful downside risk. Any material escalation could weigh on Japan’s outlook and complicate the case for further policy tightening.

251215T2.jpg

**China**
Moving to China, the latest monthly data point to a broad-based slowdown in growth in November. Year-on-year retail sales growth slowed to its weakest pace since 2022, while year-to-date year-on-year fixed asset investment growth fell to its lowest level since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (chart 3). Industrial production growth also eased, albeit to a lesser extent. In addition, house price declines accelerated, reversing the easing trend seen in previous months. Overall, the latest data extend the pattern of deteriorating growth observed in recent months. That said, it remains to be seen whether the November readings will ultimately cause China to miss its 5% growth target for the year, given the substantial head start accumulated over the first three quarters. Moreover, China has enjoyed a bumper year in trade, which we discuss in the next section.

251215T3.jpg

Looking more closely at China’s trade performance, it has become clear that earlier fears of a trade-driven collapse in China’s growth have not materialised. Instead, China’s overall trade surplus has continued to widen, having topped $1 trillion this year, even as its bilateral surplus with the US has fallen sharply (chart 4). This suggests that China’s surplus expansion has been driven by other trading partners, which have effectively been absorbing China’s excess capacity. The stronger-than-expected trade outturn has also been a key factor behind the upward revisions to China’s GDP outlook for the year, with growth still on track to meet the 5% target barring any major setbacks. While this dynamic is not a direct risk in itself, surging exports to these partner economies could become problematic if domestic industries in the receiving countries are unable to absorb the inflow or begin to feel crowded out. Such pressures may eventually provoke a policy response. Still, it remains uncertain whether these countries — many of them smaller economies — would adopt measures similar to those taken by the US, given the asymmetric nature of their economic relationships with China.

251215T4.jpg

**Thailand-Cambodia tensions**
Moving beyond Japan and China, region-specific tensions elsewhere in Asia also warrant attention, though their broader impact remains limited. Notably, renewed military clashes between Thailand and Cambodia have resurfaced despite an earlier peace deal brokered by Malaysia and the US. While the likelihood of these clashes escalating into a wider regional conflict is low — given their primarily border-specific nature — external pressures on both countries remain a latent risk. The previous ceasefire appeared to have been secured only after US President Trump threatened to withhold trade deals unless fighting ceased, suggesting that a similar “carrot-and-stick” approach may be used again to encourage another ceasefire, although nothing is certain. Domestically, Thailand faces additional near-term uncertainties. Prime Minister Anutin must contend with a range of issues, including preparations for early elections following his dissolution of parliament just last week, adding another layer of unpredictability (chart 5). The Thai government’s popularity has also dipped recently, partly due to criticism over its handling of floods in southern Thailand.

251215T5.jpg

**Semiconductors and AI**
Lastly, we turn to semiconductor and AI-related risks in Asia. As in markets outside the region, this year’s tech rallies are increasingly seen as overextended (chart 6), with some arguing they have entered bubble territory. Many now believe that much of the upside in future earnings has already been priced in, leaving more room for disappointment than for positive surprises. Geopolitical and competitive considerations remain important too, as highlighted by the recent US approval to sell Nvidia’s high-end (though not top-tier) H200 chips to China. However, this approval may not generate the expected enthusiasm among Chinese consumers. If the reaction mirrors that seen after the earlier approval of Nvidia’s lower-end H20 chips, China may use these openings to promote domestic chipmakers such as Huawei. This could help local firms catch up to US peers and gradually reduce reliance on imported semiconductors. Also, if US chipmaker earnings disappoint due to a lukewarm reception of the H200 chips, while local Chinese chipmakers see increased upside potential, this could translate into a divergence in equity price trajectories between the sector’s stocks in the respective markets.

251215T6.jpg

Asia

Economic Letter from Asia: Balancing Risks

251212F1.jpg

251212G1.jpg

The National Association of Realtors' Fixed Rate Mortgage Housing Affordability Index (HAI) improved 0.9% (3.6% y/y) to 106.2 in October after rising 4.7% in September, revised from 3.9%, following a 2.8% increase in August. The index level was the highest since February 2023. The level of home affordability was 18.1% higher than its low of 89.9 in October 2023, but 40.7% below the peak of 179.0 in April 2020.

The rise in October affordability occurred as the average mortgage rate fell to 6.33% from 6.43% in September. The fall in mortgage rates left them above their low of 6.26% in September of last year, though below a 7.70% high in October of 2023. They remained well above a December 2020 low of 2.73%. The median price of an existing single-family home rose 0.7% (2.2% y/y) to $420,600. That price compared to the record $438,600 in June 2025. In October, the principal plus interest payment eased 0.3% (+0.2% y/y) to $2,089 per month, down 9.6% from June’s record high of $2,311, but still well above the most recent low of $984 in February 2020. Monthly mortgage payments averaged a slightly lessened 23.5% of income during October, but remained well above a low of 14.0% of income in April 2020.

The change in housing costs in October was accompanied by a 0.5% rise (3.8% y/y) in median family income to $106,478 after falling 0.3% in September. Qualifying income declined 0.3% (+0.2% y/y) to $100,272, after falling for three straight months.

Housing affordability improved m/m in most of the country in October. The index in the Midwest, the country’s most affordable region, rose 1.5% (0.9% y/y) to 134.4. In the South, the index increased 0.7% (5.4% y/y) to 112.1, while the affordability index in the Northeast strengthened 1.1% (-1.4% y/y) to 93.7. Declining, however, was the affordability index in the West, where homes are the least affordable. The index eased 0.3% (+5.3% y/y) to 75.2 in October.

The Housing Affordability Index (HAI) equals 100 when a median-income borrower qualifies for an 80% mortgage on a median-priced existing single-family home. The HAI had exceeded 100 in each month since July 1990. It reached an all-time high of 213.3 in January 2013.

Data on Housing Affordability can be found in Haver’s **REALTOR** database. Median home sales prices are also available in **USECON**. Higher frequency interest rate data are found in **SURVEYS**, **WEEKLY**, and **DAILY**.

251212H1.jpg

251212I1.jpg

- Mortgage rates continue to decline.
- Median income strengthens.
- Affordability improves in most of country.

U.S. Housing Affordability Edges Higher in October

Andrew Cates

**The Blue Chip Consensus**
Before turning to the risks that could unsettle the global outlook in 2026, it’s worth noting the backdrop against which those risks are emerging. The first chart shows that forecasters have, if anything, become more optimistic in recent months, raising their 2026 GDP projections across many major economies. The upgrades are most visible in Asia’s tech-focused economies, where the semiconductor and AI upturn is lifting expectations, but the US has also benefited from stronger-than-expected momentum and fading concerns that tariffs would deliver a major growth hit. In short, the starting point for the global outlook has improved—making the downside scenarios explored in the next few charts all the more important to test.

251211Z1.jpg

**Policy divergence**
The second chart highlights one of the central risks to the 2026 outlook: monetary-policy calibration. Even as growth expectations have firmed, forecasters remain convinced that the major central banks still have a little further to go in their easing cycles. For both the Fed and the Bank of England, respondents expect additional rate cuts in early 2026, albeit with growing uncertainty about the exact timing and pace. The broader message is that the heavy lifting on disinflation is now largely done, and what remains are finer calibration risks—where cutting too slowly risks choking momentum, while cutting too aggressively risks undoing progress on inflation. The ECB outlook is far more fragmented. A large share of forecasters sees the next step as a cut—though not necessarily soon—but a meaningful minority lean toward a possible hike. At the opposite pole is the Bank of Japan. Unlike its peers, the BoJ is still expected to tighten policy, reflecting Japan’s firmer growth foundation and a more durable inflation process. This creates a notable US–Japan policy divergence, which has already influenced currency and bond-market behaviour and could become a larger global shock-transmission channel in 2026.

251211Z2.jpg

**Financial market stress**
The third chart highlights another source of downside risk: the widening gap between financial-market calm and real-economy anxiety. The US VIX has spent most of the past year hovering near multi-decade lows, consistent with rich valuations, abundant liquidity and a broadly optimistic macro narrative. Yet measured global economic policy uncertainty remains unusually elevated, reflecting geopolitical fragmentation, shifting trade regimes, and highly uncertain fiscal trajectories. This disconnect matters. Periods in which markets price near-perfection while the policy environment deteriorates have often been precursors to sharp repricing episodes. With valuations stretched and volatility compressed, it would not take much—a policy misstep, a geopolitical shock, or a rapid shift in rate expectations—to trigger a correction big enough to destabilise confidence in 2026.

251211Z3.jpg

**AI expectations**
Against that backdrop, our next chart highlights a more subtle but no less important vulnerability: expectations around AI-driven growth. While AI has undoubtedly been a powerful tailwind for market sentiment—and arguably a key reason why forecasters have nudged up 2026 growth projections—our survey suggests that most respondents believe financial markets are overestimating the likely economic gains. Only around a third think current expectations are broadly accurate; almost nobody believes markets are underestimating AI’s impact. This imbalance matters. When valuations are rich and optimism is heavily front-loaded, any disappointment in AI adoption, productivity gains or investment payoffs could unwind a meaningful chunk of the recent market strength. In other words, the same force lifting the outlook today could become a meaningful downside catalyst in 2026 if reality fails to keep pace with expectation.

251211Z4.jpg

**Trade disruption** 
A further downside risk comes from the latent fragilities in global trade and logistics. The Baltic Dry Index has climbed sharply in recent months, hinting at firmer shipping demand and rising transport costs, even as the Global Supply Chain Pressure Index has edged lower. That combination is telling: headline congestion may not yet be building, but underlying pressures—tight vessel availability, shifting trade routes, selective port bottlenecks and stronger goods flows—are quietly re-accumulating beneath the surface. None of this resembles the acute disruptions of 2021–22, but the risk is that a seemingly contained system can tighten very quickly. For a global economy that remains vulnerable to cost shocks and production delays, any renewed squeeze in trade logistics would add another meaningful downside risk as we look toward 2026.

251211Z5.jpg

**Geopolitical shocks** 
Geopolitical risk has eased from the extremes seen during the early stages of the Israel–Gaza conflict, but the broader backdrop remains far from settled. The global Geopolitical Risk Index is still running well above its pre-pandemic norm, and volatility is now being driven less by any single flashpoint and more by a crowded field of simmering risks. These range from an unstable Russia–Ukraine stalemate and intensifying U.S.–China strategic rivalry to ongoing tensions across the Taiwan Strait, a fragile security environment in the South China Sea, periodic flare-ups in the Caucasus and Sahel, and rising political strain ahead of multiple major elections in 2026. Venezuela’s increasing instability—both domestically and in relation to its border dispute with Guyana—adds another potential source of disruption, particularly for energy markets. While none of these risks is dominating headlines at present, history shows that geopolitical shocks rarely give advance warning. A sudden escalation in any of these theatres could easily unsettle trade flows, energy prices or investor sentiment—another meaningful downside risk as we approach 2026.

251211Z6.jpg

As 2025 draws to a close, the global economy enters 2026 with a surprisingly resilient backdrop: equity markets are still trading near cycle highs, volatility is subdued, and consensus forecasts have been drifting upward in recent months—helped by a robust US economy, firmer momentum across Asia, and optimism that AI-related investment will continue to lift the medium-term outlook (chart 1). Against this relatively constructive starting point, we focus this week on the key downside risks that could challenge the consensus narrative next year: the possibility of monetary-policy miscalibration (chart 2); the gap between elevated policy uncertainty and unusually calm financial markets (chart 3); the risk that financial markets may be overestimating the gains from AI (chart 4); renewed strain in global trade (chart 5); and geopolitical tensions (chart 6). These risks do not dominate the baseline outlook, but they help frame the vulnerabilities that could matter if global conditions deteriorate. Next week, we will turn to the upside risks—the forces that could allow the world economy to outperform again in 2026.

<iframe data-testid="embed-iframe" style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/0Nk11qt4bTvt9yn9hVzycv?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: The Downside Risks

251211J5.jpg

251211K5.jpg

The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services (BOP basis) narrowed to $52.8 billion in September from $59.3 billion in August, revised from $59.6 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected a deficit of $64.6 billion. The goods deficit fell to $79.0 billion in September from $86.1 billion in August, while the services surplus slipped to $26.2 billion from $26.8 billion in August. The real (inflation-adjusted) trade deficit in goods narrowed to $79.0 (2017$) in September from $83.7 billion in August. For all of Q3’25, the real deficit averaged $87.4 billion versus $87.7 billion in Q2, and thus it should be a modest addition to Q3 economic growth after a 4.8 percentage point addition in Q2.

Exports of goods & services rose 3.0% (5.7% y/y) in September following a 0.2% August slip. Goods exports (Census basis) strengthened 4.9% after a 0.8% slip. Nonauto consumer goods exports surged 19.1%. Industrial supplies & materials exports increased 12.1% while foods, feeds & beverage exports rose 3.4%. “Other” goods exports rose 7.6%. To the downside, capital goods exports excluding autos declined 5.3% while auto & parts exports fell 2.2%. Services exports eased 0.4%. Exports of financial services rose 1.4% while exports of maintenance & service repairs rose 0.8%. Exports of government goods and services rose 1.7%.

Imports of goods & services in September increased 0.6% (-3.7% y/y) after a 5.2% decline. Goods imports rose 0.7% (-5.9% y/y) in September after a 6.6% August decline. Nonauto consumer goods jumped 18.4% while industrial supplies & materials imports were little-changed. Elsewhere, imports fell. Capital goods excluding auto imports slumped 6.0%, auto imports fell 4.1% and food imports declined 1.6%. Total services imports rose 0.3% in September after a 0.3% decline. Maintenance & repair services increased 3.1%, construction service imports rose 1.1%, transport rose 1.5% but travel weakened 1.2%. Imports of government goods & services held steady.

By country, the goods trade deficit with China narrowed to $11.4 billion (SA) in September from $15.4 billion in August. Exports to China rose 1.8% while imports from China weakened 16.1%. The trade deficit with the European Union doubled m/m to $17.8 billion in September. Exports rose 13.2% but imports surged by one-third. The deficit with Japan declined sharply to $3.6 billion in September. Exports increased 7.9% while imports declined 12.7%.

The international trade data can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. Detailed figures on international trade are available in the **USINT** and **USTRADE** databases. The expectations figures are from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in **AS1REPNA**.

251211L5.jpg

251211M5.jpg

- Foreign trade deficit shrinks to lowest since June 2020.
- Surge in exports is driven by foods, industrial supplies & nonauto consumer goods.
- Minimal import increase is held down by fewer capital goods, autos & foods.
- Services surplus eases.

U.S. Trade Deficit Narrows to Five-Year Low in September

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

251211A50.jpg

251211B50.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose 44,000 to 236,000 during the week of December 6, after declining to 192,000 during the week of November 29, revised from 191,000. The four-week moving average of initial claims was 216,750, an increase of 2,000 from the previous week unrevised average of 214,750, which was the lowest level since January 2025.

Federal government employees initially filed 643 (NSA) jobless insurance claims in the week ended November 29, after 1,126 filed in the week ended November 22, revised from 1,125.

Continuing claims for unemployment insurance posted a sharp decline of 99,000 to 1,838,000 in the week ending November 29, from 1,937,000 the prior week, revised from 1.939 million. The four-week moving average decreased by 27,000 to 1,918,000 in the week ended November 29, from 1945,250 the prior week, revised from 1.945 million. The insured unemployment rate stood at 1.2% in the week of November 29, a decrease from 1.3% in the prior week.

Federal government employees continuing benefits fell to 12,732 (NSA) in the week ended November 22, from 17,862 in the week ended November 15, revised from 17,851.

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ended November 22, the highest unemployment rates were in New Jersey (2.18%), Washington (2.23%), Massachusetts (1.95%), Connecticut (1.83%) and Rhode Island (1.82%). The lowest rates were in Florida (0.27%), South Dakota (0.34%), North Carolina (0.39%), Louisiana (0.42%), Alabama (0.44%), Virginia and Tennessee (both 0.46%), and Arkansas and Nebraska (both 0.48%). Rates in other notable states include California (1.74%), New York (1.63%), Pennsylvania (1.46%), Illinois (1.45%), and Texas (1.07%). These state data are not seasonally adjusted.

Data on weekly unemployment claims are from the Department of Labor itself, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They begin in 1967 and are contained in Haver’s **WEEKLY** database and summarized monthly in **USECON**. Data for individual states are in **REGIONW** back to December 1986.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

U.S. Business Inventories Gain

Import Prices Up Just 0.1%

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Sagged

MAPI Business Outlook Survey Off Moderately

U.S. Retail Sales Lower Due To Weakness in Autos & Housing

U.S. Retail Sales Lower Due To Weakness in Autos & Housing

June CPI Stays Low in France & Germany

June U.S. Budget Surplus As Expected