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/060614b.jpg" width="353">
Consumer prices (CPI-U) rose 0.4% last month and matched Consensus expectations. The 0.3% rise in prices less food &amp; energy, however, was firmer than expectations for a 0.2% gain.
While slight, the upside surprise in the measure of &quot;core&quot; price inflation does indicate a renewed up trend in the rate of price increase.
Core goods prices rose 0.1% for the second month, but those two gains followed a 0.3% increase in March. Whether this is normal volatility (core goods prices declined 0.1% in February) or an uptrend emerging will be more evident with the release of the June price data.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060614a.jpg" width="353">
Apparel prices rose 0.2% (0.0% y/y) in May following m/m gains of 0.6% and 1.0%. Household appliance prices rose 0.2% (1.3% y/y) and furniture prices rose 0.2% (0.4% y/y), the second m/m increase after three consecutive months of decline. New &amp; used motor vehicle prices were unchanged (0.1% y/y) and tobacco prices fell 0.1% +3.9% y/y), the second consecutive down month. Medical care commodity prices rose 0.4% (4.3% y/y) for the fourth month in the last five.
Core services prices rose 0.4% during May, an uptick after three consecutive months of 0.3% increase. The acceleration was due to a 1.0% (5.1% y/y) jump in public transportation costs. Shelter prices also increased a more rapid 0.4% (3.3% y/y) after a 0.3% rise during April, an increase that very much reflected a 0.6% (3.3% y/y) jump in the rental equivalence measure of owners&#39; primary residences. In addition, a 3.3% y/y gain in rents is an acceleration from the low of 2.5% in early 2004. Finally, education costs rose 0.5% (6.0% y/y) for the third consecutive month and medical care services prices rose 0.3% (4.1% y/y).<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060614c.jpg" width="353">
A 4.9% m/m jump in gasoline prices (33.3% y/y) caused energy prices to surge another 2.4% though in June gas prices have leveled at an average $2.90 per gallon. Natural gas &amp; electricity prices fell 0.6% (+12.7% y/y), the fifth decline in the last six months.
Food prices rose 0.2%. Meat, fish &amp; poultry prices fell 0.5% (-0.1% y/y).
The chained CPI, which adjusts for shifts in the mix of consumer purchases halved the prior month&#39;s increase and rose 0.3%. Less food &amp; energy the increase in prices also decelerated to just 0.1%.
Borrowing by U.S. Households from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond is available <a href="http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/economic_research/annual_report/2005/pdf/ar.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/@E8/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM">Consumer Price Index</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&nbsp;</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Services less Energy</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Energy</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>23.3%</td>
<td>16.9%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Food &amp; Beverages</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80113/@E80113.HTM">Chained CPI: Total (NSA)</a> </td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Consumer prices (CPI-U) rose 0.4% last month and matched Consensus expectations. The 0.3% rise in prices less food & energy, however, was firmer than expectations for a 0.2% gain. While slight, the upside surprise in the measure of [...]

CPI Rising More Quickly

<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/060614b.jpg" width="353">
Consumer prices (CPI-U) rose 0.4% last month and matched Consensus expectations. The 0.3% rise in prices less food &amp; energy, however, was firmer than expectations for a 0.2% gain.
While slight, the upside surprise in the measure of &quot;core&quot; price inflation does indicate a renewed up trend in the rate of price increase.
Core goods prices rose 0.1% for the second month, but those two gains followed a 0.3% increase in March. Whether this is normal volatility (core goods prices declined 0.1% in February) or an uptrend emerging will be more evident with the release of the June price data.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060614a.jpg" width="353">
Apparel prices rose 0.2% (0.0% y/y) in May following m/m gains of 0.6% and 1.0%. Household appliance prices rose 0.2% (1.3% y/y) and furniture prices rose 0.2% (0.4% y/y), the second m/m increase after three consecutive months of decline. New &amp; used motor vehicle prices were unchanged (0.1% y/y) and tobacco prices fell 0.1% +3.9% y/y), the second consecutive down month. Medical care commodity prices rose 0.4% (4.3% y/y) for the fourth month in the last five.
Core services prices rose 0.4% during May, an uptick after three consecutive months of 0.3% increase. The acceleration was due to a 1.0% (5.1% y/y) jump in public transportation costs. Shelter prices also increased a more rapid 0.4% (3.3% y/y) after a 0.3% rise during April, an increase that very much reflected a 0.6% (3.3% y/y) jump in the rental equivalence measure of owners&#39; primary residences. In addition, a 3.3% y/y gain in rents is an acceleration from the low of 2.5% in early 2004. Finally, education costs rose 0.5% (6.0% y/y) for the third consecutive month and medical care services prices rose 0.3% (4.1% y/y).<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060614c.jpg" width="353">
A 4.9% m/m jump in gasoline prices (33.3% y/y) caused energy prices to surge another 2.4% though in June gas prices have leveled at an average $2.90 per gallon. Natural gas &amp; electricity prices fell 0.6% (+12.7% y/y), the fifth decline in the last six months.
Food prices rose 0.2%. Meat, fish &amp; poultry prices fell 0.5% (-0.1% y/y).
The chained CPI, which adjusts for shifts in the mix of consumer purchases halved the prior month&#39;s increase and rose 0.3%. Less food &amp; energy the increase in prices also decelerated to just 0.1%.
Borrowing by U.S. Households from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond is available <a href="http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/economic_research/annual_report/2005/pdf/ar.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/@E8/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM">Consumer Price Index</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&nbsp;</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Services less Energy</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Energy</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>23.3%</td>
<td>16.9%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Food &amp; Beverages</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80113/@E80113.HTM">Chained CPI: Total (NSA)</a> </td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Mortgage Applications Recovered Last Week 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> June 14, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060614d.jpg" width="353">
The total number of mortgage applications rose 7.0% last week and recovered most of the prior three weeks&#39; declines. Nevertheless, applications in early June remained 1.4% below the May average which fell 2.2% from April.
Applications to refinance surged 10.6% following several weeks of decline. Therefore, refis in June were still 2.6% below the May average which fell 4.1% from April.
Purchase applications rose 4.8% following stability w/w the prior period. In early June purchase applications were 0.9% below the May average which fell 0.8% versus April.
During the last ten years there has been a negative 80% correlation between the interest rate level on 30-year financing and purchase applications while during those years there has been a 54% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing single family home sales.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage was stable w/w at 6.83%. Rates began June about even with the May average of 6.86% but were up sharply from the 5.81% low last June. The rate on 15-year financing rose to 6.55% from 6.52% the prior week. Interest rates on 15 and 30 year mortgages are closely correlated (&gt;90%) with the rate on 10 year Treasury securities and during the last ten years there has been a (negative) 82% correlation between purchase applications and the effective rate on a 30-Year mortgage.
The Mortgage Bankers Association surveys between 20 to 35 of the top lenders in the U.S. housing industry to derive its refinance, purchase and market indexes. The weekly survey accounts for more than 40% of all applications processed each week by mortgage lenders. Visit the Mortgage Bankers Association site <a href="http://www.mbaa.org">here</a>.
Alternative Mortgages from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston can be found <a href="http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/c&amp;b/2006/spring/alternative.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/SURVEYW/@S5/@S5.HTM">MBA Mortgage Applications (3/16/90=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">06/09/06</th>
<th scope="col">06/02/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>571.9</td>
<td>534.4</td>
<td>-35.5%</td>
<td>708.6</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>414.6</td>
<td>395.6</td>
<td>-21.7%</td>
<td>470.9</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>1,499.4</td>
<td>1,356.0</td>
<td>-49.5%</td>
<td>2,092.3</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Louise Curley

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060613h.jpg" width="353">
Two recent indicators of confidence in Germany show a mixed picture. Yesterday, the German Chamber of Commerce reported that a June survey of industrialists in some 25,000 companies showed that the balance of those expecting improvement in the outlook over those expecting worsening conditions rose to 21% from 16% in the February survey. There was an even greater increase from 11% to 18% in the industrialists appraisal of current conditions. The first chart shows the DIHK&#39;s (Deutscher Industrie und Handelskammertag) measures of confidence in the current situation and expectations for the future. (Since the surveys are conducted in only three months, February, June and October, we have interpolated the data in the chart.)<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060613i.jpg" width="353">
While industrialist remain positive about the prospects for the economy, the financial community in Germany is becoming increasingly concerned. The ZEW Center for European Economic Research announced today that its measure of confidence in the outlook, which polls some 350 institutional investors and analysts, dropped to 37.8% in June from 50.0% in May. The measure, which is the balance of optimists over pessimists, has been declining in each month since a recent peak of 71.0% was reached in January and it is the lowest value since July 2005. At the same time that fears over the outlook have risen, these investors continue to acknowledge that current conditions are improving. The second chart shows the balances of optimists over pessimists viewing the current situation and the outlook.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060613j.jpg" width="353">
Perhaps the main reason for the loss of confidence among the financial community is the fear that further increases in interest rates may be necessary to counteract inflation. Already this fear has resulted in sharp declines in world stock markets. From May 8 to June 12, world stock prices as measured by MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) fell by almost 10%. Stock prices in Germany fell by an even greater amount--14.5%. The third chart compares the MSCI indexes of world stock prices and those of Germany. (We have indexed both series to a common base--12/98=100).

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/GERMANY/@D8/@D8.HTM">Germany</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jun 06</th>
<th scope="col">May 06</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 05</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 06 </th>
<th scope="col">Feb 06</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 06</th>
<th scope="col">Oct 05&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">DIHK Current Conditions&nbsp;</td>
<td>18</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>11</td>
<td></td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">DIHK&nbsp; Expectations</td>
<td>21</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>16</td>
<td></td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">ZEW Current Conditions</td>
<td>11.9</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>-8.4</td>
<td>-19.5</td>
<td>-31.6</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">ZEW Expectations</td>
<td>37.8</td>
<td>50.0</td>
<td>62.7</td>
<td>63.4</td>
<td>69.8</td>
<td>71.0</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td>Jun 12</td>
<td>May 8</td>
<td>Pct Chg</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">MSCI World Stock Price (12/31/98=100)</td>
<td>1269.595</td>
<td>1406.276</td>
<td>9.72</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MSCI German Stock Price (12/31/69=100)&nbsp;</td>
<td>1482.815</td>
<td>1734.694</td>
<td>14.52</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Two recent indicators of confidence in Germany show a mixed picture. Yesterday, the German Chamber of Commerce reported that a June survey of industrialists in some 25,000 companies showed that the balance of those expecting [...]

German Investors Lose Confidence in Economic Outlook, While Industrialists Remain Sanguine

<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/060613k.jpg" width="353">
In May, the U.S. federal government ran a budget deficit of $42.8B that was slightly deeper than the deficit during the same month last year. The FY06 to-date budget deficit nevertheless narrowed to $227.0B versus a deficit of $272.3B during the first eight months of FY05.
Growth in net revenues FYTD versus the first eight months of FY05 improved to 12.9%. Individual income tax receipts (44% of total receipts) rose 13.6% FYTD as withheld taxes rose 7.5% and non-withheld taxes surged 21.6%. Corporate income taxes (10% of total receipts) similarly were strong and jumped 25.6% y/y during FY06&#39;s first eight months.
The improved job market lifted employment taxes (36% of total receipts) 7.5% y/y and estate &amp; gift taxes surged another 15.7% y/y.
U.S. net outlays rose 8.0% FYTD versus &#39;05. Defense spending (19% of total outlays) rose 7.0% during the first eight months of FY06 versus &#39;05.Medicare spending (12% of total outlays) surged 12.2% while spending on social security (21% of total outlays) remained strong at 5.8%.
Presidential Approval Ratings: How Low Can Bush Go? from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) can be found <a href="http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24359,filter.all/pub_detail.asp">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">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</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>$-42.8B</td>
<td>$118.9B</td>
<td>$-35.4B (5/05)</td>
<td>$-318.3B</td>
<td>$-412.7B</td>
<td>$-377.6B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Net Revenues</td>
<td>$192.7B</td>
<td>$315.1B</td>
<td>26.1%</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>$235.5B</td>
<td>$196.2B</td>
<td>25.2%</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

In May, the U.S. federal government ran a budget deficit of $42.8B that was slightly deeper than the deficit during the same month last year. The FY06 to-date budget deficit nevertheless narrowed to $227.0B versus a deficit of $272.3B [...]

U.S. Budget Deficit Deeper

<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/060613g.jpg" width="353">
Retail gasoline prices rose again last week to $2.91 per gallon (36.4% y/y). The rise left gas prices in early June still off just slightly from an average $2.91 during May.
The spot market price for regular unleaded gasoline slipped yesterday to $2.07 per gallon, down from the high of $2.15 earlier in the month.
The price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil also slipped to $70.36 per barrel versus $70.94 averaged during May and a daily high of $74.62 in early May.
Demand for gasoline extended its usual seasonal rebound. During the last four weeks the demand for gasoline is up 5.1% versus a January low. The increase, however, still is somewhat less than the 6-9% recoveries during early 2004 and early 2005. The four week average of gasoline demand versus the year ago level was down 0.8%.
The latest Short-Term Energy and Summer Fuels Outlook from the U.S. Energy Information Administration can be found <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W4/@W403/@W40303/@W40303.HTM">US Weekly</a></th>
<th scope="col">06/12/06</th>
<th scope="col">06/05/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">U.S. Retail Gasoline, Regular per Gal.</td>
<td>$2.91</td>
<td>$2.89</td>
<td>36.4%</td>
<td>$2.27</td>
<td>$1.85</td>
<td>$1.56</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Retail gasoline prices rose again last week to $2.91 per gallon (36.4% y/y). The rise left gas prices in early June still off just slightly from an average $2.91 during May. The spot market price for regular unleaded gasoline slipped [...]

Gasoline Prices Rose Again, Demand Down Y/Y

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060613f.jpg" width="353">
The International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS reported that chain store sales recovered last week from earlier weakness with a 1.2% surge.
The increase left sales in early June off a scant 0.4% from the May average which fell 0.4% from April. During the last ten years there has been a 47% correlation between the y/y change in chain store sales and the change in nonauto retail sales less gasoline.
The ICSC-UBS retail chain-store sales index is constructed using the same-store sales (stores open for one year) reported by 78 stores of seven retailers: Dayton Hudson, Federated, Kmart, May, J.C. Penney, Sears and Wal-Mart.
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC-UBS jumped 0.8% in early June (-2.9% 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/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">06/10/06</th>
<th scope="col">06/03/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>473.6</td>
<td>468.1</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

The International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS reported that chain store sales recovered last week from earlier weakness with a 1.2% surge. The increase left sales in early June off a scant 0.4% from the May average which [...]

Chain Store Sales Recover

<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/060613d.jpg" width="353">
Small business optimism in May reversed most of the prior month&#39;s recovery with a 1.6% decline, according to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).
During the last ten years there has been a 70% correlation between the level of the NFIB index and the two quarter change in real GDP.
Respondents expecting higher real sales in six months dipped but expectations that the economy would improve fell to the lowest level since early 2001.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060613e.jpg" width="353">
The percentage of firms with one or more job openings retraced all of an earlier improvement. During the last ten years there has been a 72% correlation between the NFIB percentage and the y/y change in nonfarm payrolls.
The percent planning to raise capital expenditures fell to the lowest percentage (28%) in two years..The percentage of firms planning to raise average selling prices rose to 30% though the percentage of firms actually raising prices slipped. During the last ten years there has been a 60% correlation between the change in the producer price index and the level of the NFIB price index.
About 24 million businesses exist in the United States. Small business creates 80% of all new jobs in America.

<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/@S7/@S7.HTM">Nat&#39;l Federation of Independent Business</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>
<td class="firstcol">Small Business Optimism Index (1986=100)</td>
<td>98.5</td>
<td>100.1</td>
<td>-2.3%</td>
<td>101.6</td>
<td>104.6</td>
<td>101.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Small business optimism in May reversed most of the prior month's recovery with a 1.6% decline, according to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). During the last ten years there has been a 70% correlation between [...]

Small Business Optimism Back Down, Pricing Power Firm

<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/060613b.jpg" width="353">
The finished goods producer price index rose 0.2% during May after the 0.9% spike in April. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% rise.
Prices less food &amp; energy, however, were a bit firmer than expected during May. The 0.3% gain in the core PPI compared to Consensus expectations for a 0.2% rise and followed two months of 0.1% increase. During the last ten years there has been a 47% correlation between the y/y change in core producer prices and the change in the core CPI for goods. Over the last twenty years the correlation has been 78%.
Prices of all finished consumer goods less food &amp; energy rose 0.2% (1.7% y/y). Durable consumer goods prices ticked up 0.1% (0.4% y/y) after an unchanged April reading. However, core consumer nondurable prices rose 0.4% (2.6% y/y). Capital equipment prices also were firm and rose 0.3% (1.4% y/y).<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060613c.jpg" width="353">
Finished energy prices rose 0.4% (20.1% y/y) after a 4.0% April spike. Gasoline prices rose 2.2% (42.4% y/y) and home heating oil rose 2.6% (39.4% y/y). Natural gas prices fell for the fourth month this year. The 3.1% decline nevertheless left prices up 9.4% versus one year ago.
Intermediate goods prices jumped another 1.1% as energy prices rose 1.1% (20.7% y/y). Core intermediate prices also jumped 1.1%.
Crude goods prices surged 2.0% as energy prices rose 2.5% (14.9% y/y). That gain, however, was eclipsed by a 6.2% jump in core crude prices. Copper base scrap (89.0% y/y), aluminum scrap (46.9% y/y) and iron &amp; steel scrap (32.0% y/y) prices added to earlier strong gains. During the last thirty years &quot;core&quot; crude prices have been a fair indicator of industrial sector activity with a 48% correlation between the six month change in core crude prices and the change in factory sector industrial production.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer Price Index</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">Finished Goods</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
<td>8.0%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>8.7%</td>
<td>14.6%</td>
<td>17.5%</td>
<td>25.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>26.8%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>26.5%</td>
<td>12.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The finished goods producer price index rose 0.2% during May after the 0.9% spike in April. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% rise. Prices less food & energy, however, were a bit firmer than expected during May. The 0.3% gain [...]

PPI Tame, Core firm

Futures market thinks the price of oil will recede significantly over the next six months

Recent pickup in US defense orders could help support overall growth ahead

Cost of transporting crude oil has soared to series high

Market-based inflation expectations have not yet reflected recent surge in oil prices

Global equity markets are fearing a major economic disruption from soaring oil prices

Is recent drop in sentiment signaling softer growth ahead?

With the Iran conflict, geopolitical risk has soared to alarming levels

Soaring AI-related investment in US underpinning strong contribution of business spending to overall growth

AI-related outperformance of IP in Advanced Asia ex Japan

Resilient US economy pushing up Blue Chip 2026 outlook

US and China big leaders in adoption of AI models

Robust US demand for advanced technology products

China's export growth rotating away from the US

More pronounced upward revisions in countries more exposed to AI investment

Stable job openings and hiring rates point to cautious hiring

Global freight costs are on the rise while supply chain pressures are contained

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

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

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

PMIs show still-elevated but slowing US inflation

AI boosting US investment in data centers

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

Winnie Tapasanun

260422A17.jpg

260422B17.jpg

Mortgage applications rose 7.9% w/w (29.9% y/y) in the week ending April 17 following a 1.8% rebound in the week ending April 10, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey. The latest reading was the second successive w/w gain and the largest since the February 27 week, lifting the index to 303.3, its highest level since the March 20 week. Applications for loans to purchase a house jumped 10.1% (14.5% y/y) in the April 17 week, the biggest w/w increase since the January 9 week, after a 1.0% decline in the previous week. Applications for loan refinancing rose 5.8% (51.9% y/y) in the April 17 week following a 5.1% rebound in the April 10 week.

The effective interest rate on a 30-year fixed-rate loan fell 7bps to 6.53% in the week ending April 17 from 6.60% in the week ending April 10; it was above a low of 6.29% in the week of September 20, 2024 but below a peak of 8.12% in the week of October 20, 2023. The rate on 15-year fixed-rate mortgages dropped 12bps to 5.92% in the April 17 week from 6.04% in the previous week; it was up from a low of 5.60% in the week of September 20, 2024 but down from a high of 7.44% in the week of October 27, 2023. The rate on 30-year jumbo loans declined 5bps to 6.56% in the April 17 week from 6.61% in the prior week; it was above its most recent low of 6.25% in the February 27 week but below a high of 7.99% in the week of October 27, 2023. These three rates hit their lowest levels since the March 13 week. Meanwhile, the rate on a 5-year ARM edged up to 5.81% in the April 17 week, the first w/w increase in four weeks, from 5.80% in the previous week (the lowest since the March 6 week); it was above its most recent low of 5.38% in the February 20 week but below a high of 7.31% in the week of October 27, 2023.

The share of applications for refinancing an existing loan fell to 44.2% of total applications in the week ending April 17—the sixth w/w fall in seven weeks and the lowest level since the week of August 1, 2025—after rising to 45.5% in the week ending April 10; those numbers remained below a peak of 61.9% in the January 16 week. The adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) share of activity declined to a three-week-low 8.0% in the April 17 week from 8.4% in the prior week; it was below a peak of 12.9% in the week of September 12, 2025 but above a low of 4.7% in the week of January 3, 2025.

The average size of a mortgage loan, up for the third consecutive week, rose 1.2% w/w (3.4% y/y) to $399,900 in the April 17 week, the highest level since the March 13 week, after a 1.3% increase to $395,000 in the April 10 week. The average size of a purchase loan eased 0.1% (+3.6% y/y) to $455,600 in the April 17 week, the fourth w/w decline in five weeks, following a 1.8% rebound to $456,100 in the prior week. The average size of a loan to refinance a mortgage climbed 2.4% (10.7% y/y) to $329,500 in the April 17 week after a 1.5% rise to $321,800 in the previous week, marking the third successive w/w increase and the highest level since the March 20 week.

The Mortgage Bankers Association Survey covers 75% of all U.S. retail residential mortgage applications and has been conducted weekly since 1990. Respondents include mortgage bankers, commercial banks and thrifts. The base period and value for all indexes is March 16, 1990=100. The figures for weekly mortgage applications and interest rates are available in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database.

- Purchase applications +10.1% w/w, biggest increase since the Jan. 9 week; refinancing loan applications +5.8% w/w, second consecutive rise.
- Effective interest rate on 30-year fixed loans down 7bps to 6.53%, a five-week low.
- Average loan size up for the third straight week, highest level since the March 13 week.

U.S. Mortgage Applications Up 7.9% in the April 17 Week, Largest Gain Since Late February

Robert Brusca

260422E.jpg

The National Bank of Belgium consumer survey for April registered -9, compared to a reading of -6 in March and +1 in February. Since the war in the Middle East began, confidence readings have declined steadily. However, the April consumer confidence reading of -9 still shows improvement from its level of -14 recorded 2 months ago. The index has a 37.8 percentile standing based on data back to 1991, which places it below its historic median: the median ranking occurs at a percentile standing of 50.

The responses to the survey are mixed and some of them are quite negative; however, a few also are quite upbeat. For now, the main message is that the survey is mixed. While most confidence readings tend to the weak side, there are a few that are actually quite encouraging.

**Economic Situation**
A survey on the economic situation shows improvement for the next 12 months; its April reading rose to -43 in April from -45 in March. However, with the onset of war, the March reading had fallen to -45 from -25 in February, so the month-to-month uptick in April is really small potatoes. The 12-month change in the outlook for the economic situation over the next 12 months is a tick better in April 2026 than it was in April 2025. Continuing the back and forth on its “bad but not that bad” swing, the queue reading of the index on data back to 1991 has only a 1.8 percentile standing, marking it as weaker than its current level less than 2% of the time and ending the back-and-forth on whether the reading is poor or not. It is very weak.

The assessment of the economic situation over the last 12 months deteriorated to -57 in April from -42 in March, and it also worsened compared to its level of a year ago. In addition, its standing is in the bottom 8% of its historic queue data.

**Prices**
Price trends give us some of the clearest and most negative views. Prices over the next 12 months improved slightly from March, moving to a reading of 50 in April from 53 in March. Still, the April reading of 50 is higher than its reading of 35 one year ago, and its standing is in the top 1% of all observations on data back to 1991. Those are dismal statistics. Price trends for the last 12 months are shown to have been slightly more stable but still with readings that had been historically worse, only about 15% of the time, marking the past inflation environment as having been poor as well.

**Unemployment**
The consumers’ unemployment forecast went up in April to a reading of +6 from -3 in March; it had deteriorated to -3 in March from -11 in February. A rising unemployment response reflects deterioration. People are assessing the possibility of unemployment as getting higher, although at +6 the April reading is substantially reduced compared to what it was a year ago at +21. The standing for the unemployment forecast is only in its 16.7 percentile of its historic queue of data, meaning that the likelihood of unemployment has been lower than this, only about 16% to 17% of the time.

**Major Household Purchases**
If you look at the environment to make major household purchases, the responses of consumers become slightly more convoluted since the question as to whether it's favorable to buy at present deteriorated sharply in April to -44 from -23 in March; that was a sharp deterioration from -20 a year ago. Ranking the current -44 reading on data back to 1991, this is the weakest or the worst favorability for spending on this timeline. So that particular sequence of data doesn't fit really well with the unemployment responses, although being unemployed and finding it's a favorable time to buy goods are different things; both do speak to the economic environment which we can see is somewhat touch and go.

The outlook for making major purchases over the next 12 months deteriorated slightly over the last few months, with a reading of -19 compared to -17 a year ago. That current reading has a 24.3 percentile standing, placing it in the lower quartile of its historic queue of data. This underlines that the spending environment has been poor throughout the last year compared to historic experience since the 1990s.

**The Financial Situation of Households**
The financial situation of households over the next 12 months deteriorated slightly in April to -5 from -3, and it had deteriorated in March to -3 from -2 in February. Even so, the April reading of  5 was stronger than -8 recorded one year ago. Still, if we let the ranking on data back to 1991 be the arbiter of whether the assessment of conditions is weak, the 10.6 percentile standing for the financial situation ahead and the 12.2 percentile standing for the financial situation of households over the last 12 months both indicate decisive weakness.

**The Current Situation**
The next reading is a bit of a surprise given the drumbeat of weakness that we see from the data above. The current situation appraisal did backtrack in April to 21 from 25 in March, but it's only slightly weaker than a reading of 22 in February. The April 2026 reading of 21 is slightly weaker than a reading of 25 one year ago. However, the April reading has a percentile standing on data back to 1991 at its 74.5 percentile, putting it right at the border of its top 25th percentile.

So, the current situation is appraised as a top 25-percentile standing, but the environment for making purchases over the next 12 months has a lower 24-percentile standing; and the current situation has a favorability for buying which is the worst that we've seen in the entire period. However, expectations of unemployment remain low. To round out this situation, the favorability to save over the next 12 months has a ranking in its 86-percentile, making it a top 15-percentile reading. The favorability to save at present has a 58-percentile standing, placing it above its historic median and slightly better than average. What we have are crosscurrents.

On balance, you see the consumers view their situation as having a lot of crosscurrents. In terms of the thing they fear the most, unemployment conditions are not considered to be at risk and the economic situation is appraised to be in the upper tier of where it has been since the 1990s even though the favorability of spending is the worst experience for consumers on that same timeline. But the inflation readings are unambiguously bad—and worsening.

It would appear from these crosscurrents that the Belgian consumer is ripe for being pushed one way or the other if events were to markedly either improve or to deteriorate.

260422.jpg

Belgium

National Bank of Belgium Consumer Survey for April

Sandy Batten

260421V50.jpg

260421W50.jpg

Total retail sales rose a larger-than-expected 1.7% m/m (+4.0% y/y) in March following an upwardly revised 0.7% m/m gain in February (previously +0.6% m/m) in February, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The Action Economics Forecast Survey looked for a 1.4% m/m increase. Excluding autos, other sales soared 1.9% m/m (+5.5% y/y) in March after an upwardly revised 0.7% monthly gain in February (previously +0.5% m/m). The Action Economics Forecast Survey looked for a 1.4% m/m increase in sales excluding autos. The March increase in total sales was the largest monthly increase since last March while the March jump in ex-auto sales was the largest monthly gain since January 2023.

As expected, a 15.5% m/m surge in sales at gasoline stations, largely reflecting a previously reported 21.2% m/m jump in retail gasoline prices, accounted for much of the monthly increase in both overall and ex-auto sales in March. However, sales were solid even without gasoline sales. Total sales excluding gasoline rose 0.6% in March versus a 0.7% monthly gain in February. Sales excluding both autos and gasoline increased 0.6% m/m in March, the same rise as in February. Forecasters expected only a 0.2% m/m increase in sales ex both autos and gasoline.

The control group of sales (total sales excluding food services, autos, gasoline and building materials that the BEA uses to construct PCE in the national accounts) posted another solid increase in March, rising 0.7% m/m following an upwardly revised 0.6% monthly increase in February (previously +0.5% m/m). For all of Q1, control group sales were up 1.2% q/q, up from a 0.7% quarterly gain in Q4. This points to a somewhat surprising pickup in household spending growth when Q1 GDP is reported on April 30. Many analysts had feared that the sharp rise in gasoline prices would put significant stress on household finances and thereby slow spending. A possible explanation for the recent resilience of sales is larger income tax refunds this year owing to the OBBBA which reduced taxes during last year while the withholding tables were not adjusted until this year (resulting in more over-withholding last year).

Sales across major sectors generally posted solid gains in March. Auto sales rose 0.5% m/m on top of a 1.0% m/m increase in February. Furniture and appliance sales jumped 1.6%, the third consecutive monthly gain and the largest since December 2024. General merchandise store sales jumped 1.0% m/m, their largest monthly gain since April 2023. Nonstore retail sales increased 1.0% m/m in March, their third consecutive month with an increase of 1% or more. Building material and garden supply store sales rose 0.7% m/m in March, their fifth consecutive monthly increase. Sales at food and beverage stores increased 0.7% m/m in March, their first monthly gain in three months. By contrast, clothing sales were unchanged following a 2.8% monthly jump in February. Sales at sporting goods, book and music stores were also unchanged in March after a 0.7% monthly rise in February. Eating out sales edged up 0.1% m/m in March following a 0.5% m/m increase in February. The only major category posting a monthly decline in March was “miscellaneous” sales which fell 0.9% m/m but this was after 2.2% m/m gains in both January and February.

Retail sales data can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. The expectations figures are from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in **AS1REPNA**.

260421X50.jpg

260421Y50.jpg

- Total sales jumped 1.7% m/m in March with small upward revisions to January and February.
- Gasoline sales surged 15.5% m/m in March, but even excluding that increase, the remainder of retail sales rose 0.6% m/m.
- Excluding autos, sales soared 1.9% m/m in March with small upward revisions to January and February.
- Sales of the retail control group that is used to construct PCE rose 0.7% m/m in March and 1.2% q/q for all of Q1.

U.S. Retail Sales Jumped in March only Partly Due to Surging Gasoline Prices

260421F.jpg

260421G.jpg

The Pending Home Sales Index, a forward-looking measure of home sales based on contract signings, rose 1.5% m/m to 73.7 in March following an upwardly revised 2.5% gain in February (+1.8% initially) and a 1.0% decline in January (unrevised), according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). March marked the second straight m/m rise and the highest index level since November (77.2). The year-on-year rate was -1.1% in March, the fourth consecutive negative y/y reading, compared to -0.1% in February and -2.1% in March 2025. The index had fallen 41.1% since its October 2021 high of 125.1.

The m/m rise in March pending home sales coincided with an increase in the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate to a three-month-high 6.18% in March after a 6-bps decline to 6.05% in February. These rates, while below a peak of 7.62% in October 2023, had remained above a low of 5.22% in August 2022 and more than double a record-low 2.68% in December 2020.

By region, March pending home sales showed a mixed performance. Sales in the Northeast rebounded 4.4% (-6.5% y/y) in March, the first m/m increase since November, after a 2.6% decrease in February. Sales in the South rose 3.9% (2.3% y/y) following a 3.5% February rise and two successive m/m declines. Sales in the West dropped 2.6% (-1.7% y/y) after a 0.9% February increase, and sales in the Midwest fell 1.3% (-3.1% y/y) after a 5.5% February gain; both regions declined m/m for the first time since December.

The pending home sales index measures sales at the time the contract for the purchase of an existing home is signed, similar to the Census Bureau's new home sales data. In contrast, the National Association of Realtors' existing home sales data are recorded when the sale is closed, which is usually a couple of months after the sales contract has been signed. In developing the pending home sales index, the NAR found that the level of monthly sales contract activity leads the level of closed existing home sales by about two months.

The series dates back to 2001 and are available in Haver's **PREALTOR** database. Weekly mortgage interest rates from the Mortgage Bankers Association can be found in the **WEEKLY** database.

- PHSI +1.5% m/m (-1.1% y/y) to 73.7 in Mar., highest level since Nov.
- Home sales m/m up in the Northeast (+4.4%) and South (+3.9%); down in the Midwest (-1.3%) and West (-2.6%).
- Home sales y/y down in the Northeast (-6.5%), Midwest (-3.1%), and West (-1.7%); up in the South (+2.3%).

U.S. Pending Home Sales Up for Second Consecutive Month in March

260421E.jpg

The overarching survey indicator for March stepped up despite enhanced global challenges. The March headline index rose to 99.3 from 98 in both January and February.

The March level of the headline compares to a 12-month average of 97.2. Nearly all the components in March are above their 12-month averages. The exception is the output change, which is substantially weaker than its 12-month average. Expected production, at 3.1 in March, is just a tick below its 12 month average of 3.2. Finally, expected employment in March is tied with its 12-month average.

In addition, only 3 readings weaker month-to-month in March were output change, expected production, and expected employment.

On the month, output change is a weak reading, falling by 3.5 points month-to-month; it may be the clearest example of the report showing weakness ahead, affected by upcoming global issues related to the war and rising oil and energy prices.

In addition to output change, expected production slipped to 3.1 in March from 4.8 in February. There was also a step back in expected employment, a modest one to 0.8 in March from 1.0 in February.

But order books showed a 10.2 reading in March, up from 5.6 in February. Changes in new foreign orders and total orders both showed more strength in March than in February, with foreign orders at 5.5 in March compared to 5.2 in February. The change in total orders, at 10.2 in March, was much stronger than 5.6 in February. Inventories registered 0.6 in March, up from -0.3 in February.

However, capacity space is being used up as capacity use rose to 77.0 in March from 76.6 in February.

The employment metric at 2.6 in March was much stronger than its zero reading in February.

On balance, the components indicate the sector is moving ahead as the headline gain suggests in March. But the major question mark is probably the strength in orders—which we take to be forward-looking compared to the setback in output change.

The index in March has a 64.1 percentile standing. Only three components in March ranked below their respective 50% marks (below their medians). The strongest readings generated standings in the 90th and mid-80th-percentile levels. These included finished inventories, the change in total orders, and order books. The lagging components, below their median values, were output change, expected production, and capacity utilization.

The French industrial readings are surprising for their resilience.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

CPI Rising More Quickly

CPI Rising More Quickly

German Investors Lose Confidence in Economic Outlook, While Industrialists Remain Sanguine

U.S. Budget Deficit Deeper

Gasoline Prices Rose Again, Demand Down Y/Y

Chain Store Sales Recover

Small Business Optimism Back Down, Pricing Power Firm

PPI Tame, Core firm