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/060502e.jpg" width="353">
The British Bankers&#39; Association released figures on mortgage and consumer credit lending today. Outstanding mortgages were up 0.12% from February and 3.54% above March 2005. Consumer credit outstanding, on the contrary, declined 1.82% from February and was 7.18% below March, 2005.
The year-to-year changes in outstanding mortgage and consumer credit have been declining since mid-2004. The deceleration in mortgages has been modest compared to that in consumer credit as can be seen in the first chart.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060502f.jpg" width="353">
The decline in credit card debt is reflected in the decline over the past year or so in retail sales of household goods. The second chart shows the year-to-year change in retail sales of household goods and the net increase in consumer credit outstandings. Both series are seasonally unadjusted.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060502g.jpg" width="353">
Banks have been playing a smaller proportional role in mortgage lending as Other Specialist Lenders (Non-bank UK credit grantors and specialist mortgage lenders) have taken a larger share of the market. Banks&#39; share in the market has gone from 72.0% in 2000 to 59.4% in 2005, while that of Other Specialist Lenders has risen from 7.7% to 22.3%. The share of Building Societies has declined moderately from 20.0% to 17.9%. The share of other lenders has been insignificant. The year-to-year changes in outstanding mortgages at Banks and at Other Specialist lenders are shown in the third chart. While the yearly increases in Other Specialist Lenders have been declining they are still increasing at rates of almost 30% compared to about 5% for Banks.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/UK/@U1/@U106/@U106.HTM">United Kingdom</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar 06</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 06</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 05</th>
<th scope="col">M/M % </th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2003&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">BBA Consumer Credit Outstanding (Bil. GBP)</td>
<td>31.2</td>
<td>31.8</td>
<td>33.6</td>
<td>-1.82</td>
<td>-7.18</td>
<td>33.4</td>
<td>34.0</td>
<td>28.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">BBA Mortgages Outstanding (Bil.GBP)</td>
<td>513.6</td>
<td>513.0</td>
<td>496.1</td>
<td>0.12</td>
<td>3.54</td>
<td>521.1</td>
<td>496.4</td>
<td>468.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Mortgage Lending by: %</td>
<td>2005</td>
<td>2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
<td>2002</td>
<td>2001</td>
<td> 2000 </td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Banks</td>
<td>59.4</td>
<td>61.8</td>
<td>65.9</td>
<td>69.1</td>
<td>41.0</td>
<td>72.0</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Building Societies</td>
<td>&nbsp;17.9</td>
<td>18.2&nbsp;</td>
<td>18.4</td>
<td>18.3&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;19.2</td>
<td>&nbsp;20.0</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Other Specialist Lenders</td>
<td>22.3</td>
<td>19.6</td>
<td>15.4</td>
<td>12.1</td>
<td>9.7</td>
<td>7.7</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Other Lenders</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The British Bankers' Association released figures on mortgage and consumer credit lending today. Outstanding mortgages were up 0.12% from February and 3.54% above March 2005. Consumer credit outstanding, on the contrary, declined [...]

UK Mortgage Lending Up but Consumer Credit Down

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/060502d.jpg" width="353">
Announced job cuts fell another 8.1% last month on top of the 25.7% m/m decline during March, according to the Challenger, Grey &amp; Christmas survey. The decline was to the lowest level since last April.
During the last ten years there has been an 83% (inverse) correlation between the three month moving average level of announced job cuts and the three month change payroll employment.
Layoffs in the apparel industry dropped sharply (-52.2% y/y) as did job cuts in financial (-37.8 y/y, industrial goods (-5.5% y/y), pharmaceutical (-67.3% y/y) and retail (-82.6% y/y). Announced job cuts in electronics (-74.0% y/y) and automotive industries (139.2% y/y) rose m/m.
Job cut announcements differ from layoffs. Many are achieved through attrition, early retirement or just never occur.
Challenger also reported a sharp m/m increase in announced hiring plans (81.7% 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/SURVEYS/@S3/@S301/@S301.HTM">Challenger, Gray &amp; Christmas</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Announced Job Cuts</td>
<td>59,688</td>
<td>64,975</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>1,072,054</td>
<td>1,039,935</td>
<td>1,236,426</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Announced job cuts fell another 8.1% last month on top of the 25.7% m/m decline during March, according to the Challenger, Grey & Christmas survey. The decline was to the lowest level since last April. During the last ten years there [...]

Challenger Layoffs Lower Still

<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/060502c.jpg" width="353">
Retail gasoline prices rose less than one penny last week to $2.92 per gallon (30.6% y/y). The near-stability followed four consecutive weeks of increase which ranged between nine and thirteen cents per week.
Earlier signs of relief from the recent upward pressure on prices reversed a bit yesterday as the spot market price for regular unleaded rose a nickel. Nevertheless, the latest spot price at $2.17 per gallon was down from the high of $2.35 during mid-April.
The price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil also move up yesterday to $73.71 per barrel, twelve cents short of the record high.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060502b.jpg" width="353">
The jump in gasoline prices has been accompanied by a sharp slowdown in gasoline demand. Through the latest four weeks, demand versus the year ago level went negative by 0.5%, the first negative y/y comparison since last Autumn when gas prices were similarly elevated.
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">05/01/06</th>
<th scope="col">04/24/06</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>$2.92</td>
<td>$2.91</td>
<td>30.6%</td>
<td>$2.27</td>
<td>$1.85</td>
<td>$1.56</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Retail gasoline prices rose less than one penny last week to $2.92 per gallon (30.6% y/y). The near-stability followed four consecutive weeks of increase which ranged between nine and thirteen cents per week. Earlier signs of relief [...]

Gasoline Prices Stable Last Week, But ...

<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/060502a.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales jumped another 0.7% last week and more than recouped the prior period&#39;s 0.2% decline, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey.
The late-month recovery lifted April chain store sales 1.6% above the March average which rose 0.7% from February. The April gain was the largest in over two years and during the first four months of 2006, chain store sales rose at a 14% annual rate.
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 chain store sales leading indicator fell 0.6% during the latest week (-1.4% y/y) marking the third decline in the last four periods. In April, the leading indicator is down 0.7% from the March average which rose 0.3% from February.
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.
Cross-Country Personal Saving Rates from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is available <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/net/20060501/cover.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/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">04/29/06</th>
<th scope="col">04/22/06</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>477.7</td>
<td>474.6</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Chain store sales jumped another 0.7% last week and more than recouped the prior period's 0.2% decline, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey. The late-month recovery lifted April chain store [...]

When Shoppers Shop ...

<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/060502a.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales jumped another 0.7% last week and more than recouped the prior period&#39;s 0.2% decline, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey.
The late-month recovery lifted April chain store sales 1.6% above the March average which rose 0.7% from February. The April gain was the largest in over two years and during the first four months of 2006, chain store sales rose at a 14% annual rate.
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 chain store sales leading indicator fell 0.6% during the latest week (-1.4% y/y) marking the third decline in the last four periods. In April, the leading indicator is down 0.7% from the March average which rose 0.3% from February.
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.
Cross-Country Personal Saving Rates from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is available <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/net/20060501/cover.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/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">04/29/06</th>
<th scope="col">04/22/06</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>477.7</td>
<td>474.6</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Gasoline Prices Stable Last Week, But ... 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> May 2, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060502c.jpg" width="353">
Retail gasoline prices rose less than one penny last week to $2.92 per gallon (30.6% y/y). The near-stability followed four consecutive weeks of increase which ranged between nine and thirteen cents per week.
Earlier signs of relief from the recent upward pressure on prices reversed a bit yesterday as the spot market price for regular unleaded rose a nickel. Nevertheless, the latest spot price at $2.17 per gallon was down from the high of $2.35 during mid-April.
The price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil also move up yesterday to $73.71 per barrel, twelve cents short of the record high.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060502b.jpg" width="353">
The jump in gasoline prices has been accompanied by a sharp slowdown in gasoline demand. Through the latest four weeks, demand versus the year ago level went negative by 0.5%, the first negative y/y comparison since last Autumn when gas prices were similarly elevated.
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">05/01/06</th>
<th scope="col">04/24/06</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>$2.92</td>
<td>$2.91</td>
<td>30.6%</td>
<td>$2.27</td>
<td>$1.85</td>
<td>$1.56</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Challenger Layoffs Lower Still 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> May 2, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060502d.jpg" width="353">
Announced job cuts fell another 8.1% last month on top of the 25.7% m/m decline during March, according to the Challenger, Grey &amp; Christmas survey. The decline was to the lowest level since last April.
During the last ten years there has been an 83% (inverse) correlation between the three month moving average level of announced job cuts and the three month change payroll employment.
Layoffs in the apparel industry dropped sharply (-52.2% y/y) as did job cuts in financial (-37.8 y/y, industrial goods (-5.5% y/y), pharmaceutical (-67.3% y/y) and retail (-82.6% y/y). Announced job cuts in electronics (-74.0% y/y) and automotive industries (139.2% y/y) rose m/m.
Job cut announcements differ from layoffs. Many are achieved through attrition, early retirement or just never occur.
Challenger also reported a sharp m/m increase in announced hiring plans (81.7% 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/SURVEYS/@S3/@S301/@S301.HTM">Challenger, Gray &amp; Christmas</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Announced Job Cuts</td>
<td>59,688</td>
<td>64,975</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>1,072,054</td>
<td>1,039,935</td>
<td>1,236,426</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
 UK Mortgage Lending Up but Consumer Credit Down  
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> May 2, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060502e.jpg" width="353">
The British Bankers&#39; Association released figures on mortgage and consumer credit lending today. Outstanding mortgages were up 0.12% from February and 3.54% above March 2005. Consumer credit outstanding, on the contrary, declined 1.82% from February and was 7.18% below March, 2005.
The year-to-year changes in outstanding mortgage and consumer credit have been declining since mid-2004. The deceleration in mortgages has been modest compared to that in consumer credit as can be seen in the first chart.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060502f.jpg" width="353">
The decline in credit card debt is reflected in the decline over the past year or so in retail sales of household goods. The second chart shows the year-to-year change in retail sales of household goods and the net increase in consumer credit outstandings. Both series are seasonally unadjusted.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060502g.jpg" width="353">
Banks have been playing a smaller proportional role in mortgage lending as Other Specialist Lenders (Non-bank UK credit grantors and specialist mortgage lenders) have taken a larger share of the market. Banks&#39; share in the market has gone from 72.0% in 2000 to 59.4% in 2005, while that of Other Specialist Lenders has risen from 7.7% to 22.3%. The share of Building Societies has declined moderately from 20.0% to 17.9%. The share of other lenders has been insignificant. The year-to-year changes in outstanding mortgages at Banks and at Other Specialist lenders are shown in the third chart. While the yearly increases in Other Specialist Lenders have been declining they are still increasing at rates of almost 30% compared to about 5% for Banks.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/UK/@U1/@U1.HTM">United Kingdom</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar 06</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 06</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 05</th>
<th scope="col">M/M % </th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2003&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">BBA Consumer Credit Outstanding (Bil. GBP)</td>
<td>31.2</td>
<td>31.8</td>
<td>33.6</td>
<td>-1.82</td>
<td>-7.18</td>
<td>33.4</td>
<td>34.0</td>
<td>28.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">BBA Mortgages Outstanding (Bil.GBP)</td>
<td>513.6</td>
<td>513.0</td>
<td>496.1</td>
<td>0.12</td>
<td>3.54</td>
<td>521.1</td>
<td>496.4</td>
<td>468.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Mortgage Lending by: %</td>
<td>2005</td>
<td>2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
<td>2002</td>
<td>2001</td>
<td> 2000 </td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Banks</td>
<td>59.4</td>
<td>61.8</td>
<td>65.9</td>
<td>69.1</td>
<td>41.0</td>
<td>72.0</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Building Societies</td>
<td>&nbsp;17.9</td>
<td>18.2&nbsp;</td>
<td>18.4</td>
<td>18.3&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;19.2</td>
<td>&nbsp;20.0</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Other Specialist Lenders</td>
<td>22.3</td>
<td>19.6</td>
<td>15.4</td>
<td>12.1</td>
<td>9.7</td>
<td>7.7</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Other Lenders</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060501g.jpg" width="353">
China&#39;s balance of payment data for 2005 were released today and, to no one&#39;s surprise, the current account surplus was a record--$160.8 billion, $67.2 billion in the first half of the year and $93.5 in the second half. For the year as a whole, the surplus was $92.2 billion above last year&#39;s surplus of $68.7 billion. (Data for China&#39;s balance of payments are reported only on a semi annual basis.)<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060501i.jpg" width="353">
With its large current account surplus and a net inflow of capital, China has been piling up international reserves as can be seen in the first chart that compares the current account surplus with the increase in reserves. China is now the world&#39;s largest holder of international reserves having surpassed Japan in November 2004 as seen in the second chart.As of December, 2005, China&#39;s holdings of foreign reserves less gold amounted to $822 billion and the latest data for February, 2006, show a further rise to $856 billion.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060501h.jpg" width="353">
Data for China&#39;s trade through March 2006 was also released today. The widening gap between exports to and imports from the United States shows no sign of diminishing as can be seen in the third chart.
Data on China&#39;s trade and balance of payments may be found in the Haver CHINA and EMERGEPR data bases. The data on the balance of payments are identical in both data bases, but the data on trade are more detailed in the CHINA data base. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/JAPAN/@J5/@J5.HTM">China</a>&nbsp; (Bil. US $)</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 06</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 06</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 05</th>
<th scope="col">M/M % </th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2003&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Trade in Goods</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Exports</td>
<td>77.9</td>
<td>70.1</td>
<td>61.0</td>
<td>11.1</td>
<td>29.7</td>
<td>762.0</td>
<td>593.3</td>
<td>438.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;Imports</td>
<td>63.2</td>
<td>66.4</td>
<td>52.3</td>
<td>-4.8</td>
<td>20.8</td>
<td>660.0</td>
<td>561.2</td>
<td>412.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Balance</td>
<td>14.7</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td>11.0 dif</td>
<td>6.1 dif</td>
<td>102.0</td>
<td>32.1</td>
<td>25.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Balance with U. S.</td>
<td>12.6</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>9.2</td>
<td>2.1 dif </td>
<td>3.4 dif</td>
<td>114.2</td>
<td>80.3</td>
<td>58.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Balance of Payments&nbsp;</td>
<td>H2 06</td>
<td>H1 05</td>
<td>H2 05</td>
<td>H/H dif </td>
<td>Y/Y dif</td>
<td>2005</td>
<td>2004&nbsp;</td>
<td>2003&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Current Account</td>
<td>160.8</td>
<td>67.3</td>
<td>68.6</td>
<td>93.5</td>
<td>92.2</td>
<td>160.8</td>
<td>68.6</td>
<td>45.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capital Account</td>
<td>&nbsp;4.1</td>
<td>2.2&nbsp;</td>
<td>-0.1&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;1.9</td>
<td>4.2&nbsp;</td>
<td>4.1&nbsp;</td>
<td>-0.1&nbsp;</td>
<td>-0.0&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Financial Account</td>
<td>58.9</td>
<td>36.1</td>
<td>110.7</td>
<td>22.7</td>
<td>51.9</td>
<td>58.9</td>
<td>110.7</td>
<td>52.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Change in Reserves*</td>
<td>-207.0</td>
<td>-100.5</td>
<td>-206.4</td>
<td>-106.6</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>-207.0</td>
<td>-206.4</td>
<td>117.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Errors &amp; Omissions</td>
<td>-16.77</td>
<td>-5.1</td>
<td>27.05</td>
<td>-11.9</td>
<td>-43.8</td>
<td>-16.77</td>
<td>27.05</td>
<td>18.42</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

China's balance of payment data for 2005 were released today and, to no one's surprise, the current account surplus was a record--$160.8 billion, $67.2 billion in the first half of the year and $93.5 in the second half. For the year [...]

No Surprises in China's Balance of Payments and Trade Data

<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/060501e.jpg" width="353">
The March value of construction put in place increased another 0.9% on top of the 1.0% rise during February and for the second month, the gain was double the Consensus expectation for a 0.4% increase.
Residential building jumped 1.6% after an unrevised 1.3% February surge. Strength was most pronounced in the value of improvements which jumped 4.5% (-7.0% y/y) while new single family building rose 0.5% (13.5% y/y).
Nonresidential building fell 0.1%, the first decline since last October, and it was led by a 1.7% (+11.2% y/y) drop in office construction. Commercial building rose 0.6% (8.7% y/y) after a huge 3.3% February drop.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060501f.jpg" width="353">
Public construction spending rose 0.2% for the second month though construction activity on highways &amp; streets, nearly one third of the value of public construction spending, slipped 0.4% (4.9% y/y).
These more detailed categories represent the Census Bureau&#146;s reclassification of construction activity into end-use groups. Finer detail is available for many of the categories; for instance, commercial construction is shown for Automotive sales and parking facilities, drugstores, building supply stores, and both commercial warehouses and mini-storage facilities. Note that start dates vary for some seasonally adjusted line items in 2000 and 2002 and that constant-dollar data are no longer computed.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E907/@E90701/@E90701.HTM">Construction Put-in-place</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>8.4%</td>
<td>9.2%</td>
<td>10.9%</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Private</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>8.9%</td>
<td>9.7%</td>
<td>13.6%</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Residential</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>8.6%</td>
<td>11.5%</td>
<td>18.2%</td>
<td>12.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonresidential</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>9.6%</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>-5.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Public</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The March value of construction put in place increased another 0.9% on top of the 1.0% rise during February and for the second month, the gain was double the Consensus expectation for a 0.4% increase. Residential building jumped 1.6% [...]

U.S. Construction Again 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/060501d.jpg" width="353">
The April Composite Index of activity in the factory sector reported by the Institute of Supply Management (ISM) surged to 57.3, well ahead of Consensus expectations for an unchanged reading at 55.0. The figure was the highest since last November and represented improvement from the 1Q average of 55.6.
During the last twenty years there has been a 68% correlation between the level of the Composite Index and the three month growth in factory sector industrial production.
A higher production index at 60.4 versus 57.2 averaged during 1Q led last month&#39;s rise. Moreover, the employment index rebounded to 55.8 versus 52.9 during 1Q. During the last twenty years there has been a 67% correlation between the level of the ISM employment Index and the three month growth in factory sector employment. The inventory index also rose to its highest level (51.3) in a year while the supplier deliveries index increased to its highest (57.7) since October.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060501c.jpg" width="353">
To the downside was the new orders index which fell to the lowest level (57.6) since August. New export orders were notably weak as the index dropped to the lowest level (53.4) since last June.
The price index showed further strength with a five point increase to its highest level since November. During the last twenty years there has been a 91% correlation between the price index and the three month change in the PPI for intermediate goods less food &amp; energy.
Are We Engineering Ourselves Out of Manufacturing Jobs? from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland can be found <a href="http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/Com2006/0101.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/@EF/@EF02/@EF02.HTM">ISM Manufacturing Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">April &#39;05</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">Composite Index</td>
<td>57.3</td>
<td>55.2</td>
<td>53.8</td>
<td>55.5</td>
<td>60.5</td>
<td>53.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; New Orders Index</td>
<td>57.6</td>
<td>58.4</td>
<td>54.7</td>
<td>57.4</td>
<td>63.5</td>
<td>57.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid Index (NSA)</td>
<td>71.5</td>
<td>66.5</td>
<td>71.0</td>
<td>66.4</td>
<td>79.8</td>
<td>59.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The April Composite Index of activity in the factory sector reported by the Institute of Supply Management (ISM) surged to 57.3, well ahead of Consensus expectations for an unchanged reading at 55.0. The figure was the highest since [...]

ISM Activity & Pricing Indexes Up

Surging orders for computers and electronics propelling durable goods orders

Next year's inflation forecasts are on the rise and above target

Disrupted global supply chains placing upward pressure on US goods prices

Construction of data centers has overtaken transportation construction in US

Elevated energy prices putting intense upward pressure on input prices around the globe

US is big leader in global surge in private AI investment

Larger-than-usual income tax refunds this year are supporting consumer spending

Sharply rising share of AI-related jobs

Inflationary impact of surge in oil prices larger in Europe than in the US

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

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

Cost of transporting crude oil has soared to series high

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

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

Is recent drop in sentiment signaling softer growth ahead?

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

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

AI-related outperformance of IP in Advanced Asia ex Japan

Resilient US economy pushing up Blue Chip 2026 outlook

US and China big leaders in adoption of AI models

Robust US demand for advanced technology products

China's export growth rotating away from the US

More pronounced upward revisions in countries more exposed to AI investment

Stable job openings and hiring rates point to cautious hiring

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

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. 

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Featured Data Additions

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Michael J. Moran

260701A.jpg

260701B.jpg

The monthly report on construction activity receives scant attention in the financial press, and investors and traders in financial markets typically pay little heed. However, it is a valuable report for economists, as it provides a broad-based view of building activity, covering private residential and business construction, as well as government-related activity. The figures feed into the calculation of GDP. Unfortunately, results have been soft since early 2025.

Total construction activity rose 0.1 percent in May, marking the third consecutive increase. However, the gains have not been especially large, averaging 0.3%, and they have barely dented the string of weak readings in the preceding 17 months. The year-over-year change in May totaled -1.5%.

Private residential construction, the largest component of the total (41% share), rose 0.3% in May, adding to an average gain of 1.1% in the prior two months and leaving a year-over-year increase of 1.8% (chart, upper left). Most of the advance in the past year was the result of improvements to existing homes (up 8.1%). Construction of new multi-family units has shown little net change in the past year or so, while new single-family building has traced a mild downward trend (off 4.0% in the past year). Public construction has been flat in the past year, with both the federal government and state and local governments showing little net change (chart, upper right).

Private nonresidential construction (34% of the total) has received considerable press attention in the past few years because of explosive growth in the building of data centers. Growth has indeed been vigorous. Building started in 2020 and grew moderately at first, but this sector took off in 2022, about the time when artificial intelligence models became publicly available (chart, lower left, in levels to show the strong trend more clearly). Average annual growth for the three years ended 2025 totaled 48%.

Interestingly, despite the rapid growth in the building of data centers, the private nonresidential sector has been the weakest area of the construction report, with activity trending lower since early 2025 (chart, lower right). Some components of private nonresidential construction have held steady or improved (e.g. amusement & recreation, electric power), but three areas stand out on the soft side: general office, commercial, and manufacturing.

The construction figures can be found in Haver's **USECON** database. The expectations figure is from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in **AS1REPNA**.

260701C.jpg

260701D.jpg

- Building activity in the US was firm in 2023 and 2024, but it has lost ground since then.
- Government-related construction and private residential building have been little changed in the past year or so.
- Private nonresidential construction has been notably weak, despite robust activity in the building of data centers.

Construction in May: Another Soft Reading

Winnie Tapasanun

260630N3.jpg

260630O3.jpg

The Conference Board U.S. Consumer Confidence Index rose 0.7% m/m (-4.2% y/y) to a lower-than-expected 91.2 in June, the fourth monthly rise in five months, after a downwardly revised 3.4% decline to a four-month-low 90.6 in May (-0.7%; 93.1 initially). A reading of 94.3 had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The June reading was 6.4% above a low of 85.7 in April 2025 but down from 95.2 in June 2025 and 19.1% below a high of 112.8 in November 2024.

Consumers' views of present economic conditions weakened for the second consecutive month in June, while the views of future economic conditions improved m/m. The Present Situation Index—which assesses current business and labor market conditions—fell 2.5% m/m (-12.5% y/y) to 116.4 in June, the lowest level since February 2021, following a 4.0% drop to 119.4 in May and two successive m/m increases. The index was lower than 133.0 in June 2025 and 25.0% below a high of 155.3 in June 2023. The Expectations Index—which measures the short-term outlook for income, business, and labor market conditions—rose 4.2% m/m (6.4% y/y) to 74.4 this month, the highest level since December and the second increase in three months, after a 2.7% decline to 71.4 in May. The index was higher than 69.9 in June 2025, while 20.6% below a high of 93.7 in November 2024.

Labor market readings showed less optimism this month. The jobs gap—representing the difference between respondents indicating that jobs are plentiful and those saying jobs are hard to get—dropped to 2.4% in June, the lowest reading since February 2021, from 5.0% in May. Calculated by Haver Analytics, this series had an 85% correlation with the unemployment rate over the last 20 years. The jobs plentiful measure inched up to 24.9% of respondents in June from 24.8% in May (the lowest since February 2021). Perceptions of the current labor market weakened, with the jobs hard-to-get measure rising to 22.5% this month, the highest level since January 2021, from 19.8% in May.

Consumers generally viewed business conditions as slightly more favorable compared to last month. Current business conditions were perceived as good by 20.0% of respondents in June, up from 19.2% in May but below a high of 23.4% in June 2023. Expectations that business conditions would improve in six months were 19.0% of respondents, up from 18.8% in May but below a high of 24.7% in November 2024. More jobs were expected in six months by 15.2% of respondents, slightly down from 16.6% in May and below a high of 22.8% in November 2024. The percentage expecting rising income rose to 20.8% in June from 19.2% in May, the highest since February 2020 and above a low of 14.4% in February 2023.

Inflation expectations eased this month but remained elevated. The expected inflation rate in twelve months slipped to 6.0% in June, the lowest since February, after holding at 6.2% for three straight months. The latest reading was below a high of 7.0% in April 2025 but above a low of 5.0% in November 2024. In June, 61.5% of respondents expected that interest rates would rise over the next twelve months, down from 62.4% in May but up from 42.1% in January 2024.

The share of respondents planning to buy a home within six months rebounded to 6.6% in June from 6.5% in May. It was below its most recent high of 7.0% in April but above a low of 4.6% in February 2024. Those planning to buy automobiles rose to 13.3% of respondents this month from 12.6% in May; it was up from a low of 10.6% in April 2025. Meanwhile, the share of respondents planning a vacation within six months declined to 39.1%, the lowest since April 2021, from 41.4% in May.

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

260630P3.jpg

260630Q3.jpg

- Headline up 0.6 pts. to 91.2 in June, below expectations; fourth m/m increase in five mths.
- Present Situation Index down 3.0 pts. to 116.4, lowest since Feb. ’21.
- Expectations Index up 3.0 pts. to 74.4, a six-month high.
- Consumers less optimistic about current business & labor market conditions; more upbeat about future business & financial conditions.
- Inflation expectations down to 6.0%, lowest since Feb., as lower oil prices in recent weeks eased consumer inflation fears.

U.S. Consumer Confidence Rebounds in June from a Four-Month Low

Sandy Batten

260630X20.jpg

260630Y20.jpg

Total job openings edged up 0.1% m/m (+3.9% y/y) to 7.594 million in May from a downwardly revised 7.585 million in April (previously 7.618 million), according to the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. Even with only a small rise, the level of openings in May was the highest since May 2024. Accordingly, the job openings rate (the ratio of openings to nonfarm employment plus openings) was unchanged at 4.6% in May. The April and May readings for the job openings rate were the highest since November 2024. In May, the number of unemployed fell while the number of openings edged up. Consequently, the number of openings rose further above the number of unemployed for the second consecutive month, another sign that previously observed softening in labor market conditions may be reversing.

Private sector openings were essentially unchanged in May from April, edging up 2,000 (+4.3% y/y) with the private job openings rate unchanged at 4.8%. The sluggishness in private openings in May was due entirely to a 119,000 decline in private education and health care openings. However, this followed a total increase of 298,000 in March and April. Openings increased in all other major sectors, led by a 95,000 increase in openings in leisure and hospitality. Openings were up 32,000 in construction, 33,000 in manufacturing, and 37,000 in trade and transportation. Total government openings rose 7,000 in May after an upwardly revised 63,000 jump in April (previously +47,000).

Total hiring slipped 0.9% m/m (-3.0% y/y) to 5.170 million in May from an upwardly revised 5.215 million in April (previously 5.116 million). This was the third monthly decline in hiring in the past four months. The hiring rate was unchanged in May at 3.3%. Private sector hiring fell 1.6% m/m (-3.5% y/y) in May, also the third monthly decline in the past four months. The weakness in hiring in May was concentrated in trade and transportation (-56,000) and in construction (-24,000). Manufacturing posted a small decline while professional and business services, and private education and health care posted small increases. Leisure and hospitality hiring rose 15,000, the second monthly increase in the past three months. Total government hiring increased 32,000 in May.

Total separations increased 1.3% (-3.5% y/y) to 5.101 million in May from an upwardly revised 5.038 million in April (previously 4.978 million). Both quits (+22,000) and layoffs (+41,000) increased in May with no change in other separations. The separation rate in May was unchanged at 3.2%. Private separations also rose 1.3% m/m (+62,000, -2.9% y/y) in May. Private quits increased 37,000, private layoffs rose 27,000, while other private separations declined 2,000. The rise in private layoffs was concentrated in construction (+47,000), trade and transportation (+52,000), and private education and healthcare (+52,000). Layoffs declined 18,000 in manufacturing, fell 37,000 in professional and business services, and decreased 50,000 in leisure and hospitality. Even with the rise in private quits in May, they have been trending down in 2026, implying that workers are feeling less comfortable with their employment prospects and hence are choosing to remain in their current jobs.

On the whole, employers remain cautious in hiring. Furthermore, workers are sufficiently unsure of their alternative employment prospects that they are refraining from leaving their current position. Still, openings have gradually risen since the end of last year after having gradually fallen throughout 202 and once again exceed the number of unemployed.

The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data are available in Haver’s **USECON** database.

- Openings edged up 9,000 but to the highest level since May 2024.
- However, hiring fell 45,000 for the third monthly decline in the past four months.
- Separations rose 63,000 with increases in both quits and layoffs.

U.S. JOLTS: Openings and Hiring Little Changed in May

Robert Brusca

260630E.jpg

**Some inflation progress, but not enough**: The headline HICP in June for the largest monetary union economies have largely broken lower, with the exception of Spain. The German headline HICP fell by 0.1% in June after being flat in May. In France, the price index fell by 0.5% in June after growing by 0.3% in May. In Italy, the June index rose by 0.1% after rising by 0.3% in May. In Spain, June brought a 0.3% increase after a 0.2% increase in May.

**Core or ex-energy (Germany)**: The core inflation readings are available for Germany, Italy, and Spain. In the case of Germany, it's an index excluding energy only. June brought a 0.1% increase for the German index, a 0.1% decline for Italy's core index, and a 0.2% increase for Spain’s core measure. On balance, these are a good collection of results from the standpoint of the ECB that has an inflation target of 2% for the European Monetary Union as a whole, but no guidance for individual countries.

**Sequentially**: Sequentially, the headline inflation rate shows progress in Germany and France, while excesses are stubborn in Italy and Spain. Over 12 months, all the inflation rates are excessive, but France is only technically excessive and probably acceptable at 2.1% year-over-year. Germany's increase over 12 months is 2.4%, Italy's is 3.1%, and Spain’s is 3.6%. The progression of inflation from 12-months to 6-months to 3-months shows accelerations over six months compared to 12 months for France and Italy, while Germany and Spain show decelerations. However, Spain's six-month inflation rate is still 3.3%. Germany has dropped to 2.2%, France is at 3.3%, and Italy has jumped up to 5.5%. Over three months, the German headline inflation rate is zero and France has fallen to 2%, but in Italy’s headline pace has accelerated to 6.9% and Spain remains at 3.3%. These are all compounded rates of change over three months.

**Three-month trends are mixed**: None of this is really surprising since oil prices have been surging over the period and are now starting to decline. Over 12 months, the oil price is down by 22.6%; over six months, it’s down by 37% at an annual rate; and over three months, the oil price is flat. Much of this price action is still quite recent. These figures are for Brent crude measured in euros. Over three months, German inflation is flat for the headline HICP, while France’s inflation rate is down to 2%. In Italy, the three-month pace is 6.9%; in Spain it’s at 3.3%. Headline inflation still has a somewhat erratic performance over three months, although it's quite acceptable in Germany and France and quite not acceptable in Italy and Spain.

**Core inflation is lower but still too high**: Core inflation shows much more moderation because the behavior of energy prices leaves core inflation largely unaffected. If the core is affected, it occurs only after a more substantial knock-on effects from other industries. German ex-energy inflation is at 2.3% over 12 months and then settles down to a 2% annualized pace over six months and three months. Italian core inflation is golden on all three periods, at 1.5% over 12 months, down to 1.4% over six months, and down to 1.2% over three months. Spain's core inflation is excessive, although it is making progress toward a more agreeable rate from a European standpoint. Spain’s core inflation is 2.9% over 12 months, remains at 2.9% over six months, then decelerates to a 2.4% annualized rate over three months. 

260630.jpg

**Policy**: The ECB has already started to raise rates and warned that there could be more ahead, depending on circumstances. However, we are seeing signs here that inflation is beginning to behave, particularly for the core measures. We could see the headlines improve more dramatically if oil prices continue to drop as they have been. Growth in the European area has been mixed on the continent; in the United Kingdom, growth is showing signs of weakening as the U.K. inflation rate has dropped rather sharply.

**Outlook**: The outlook is still guarded. There continues to be a war in Ukraine and unsettled conditions in the Middle East, including concerns over the Strait of Hormuz where Iran continues to say that it wants to be in control of traffic through the Strait. That position doesn't seem likely to be palatable to the U.S, although time will tell what kind of deal, if any, emerges from that conflict. Inflation developments are going to depend importantly on what happens with oil and how open the Strait becomes. As we can see, Germany and Italy already present relatively controlled core inflation rates. The rest of the monetary union should follow suit as all prices should continue to behave and follow oil prices lower. It has been a long period with inflation misbehaving. The core and ex-energy inflation statistics show us that over the last five years, Germany has had a compounded ex-energy inflation rate of 3.8%, Italy 3.1%, and Spain 3.9%. These are readings excluding energy and over that five-year period. Oil and energy are not the only price concerns. Energy prices had a compounded annual rate increase of 9.7% over the last five years. Monetary policy has gotten far behind where it's supposed to be and has allowed prices to rise far more than they should have. Central banks need to pay more attention to hitting their inflation targets in the future; they can't keep missing to this extent and convince anybody that they have a viable credible inflation target at 2%.

Europe

Large EU Economies Show Some Inflation Cooling

260629E.jpg

Headline indexes for the European Monetary Union improved in June to a reading of 95.0 from 93.7 in May. The index had been stronger at 96.4 in March; however, it fell to 93.3 in April, recovered slightly to 93.7 in May, and has now reached 95.0. While still below its March high, the index has made progress in the wake of the outbreak of war-like conditions and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

**Sector performance**
The industrial reading for the sector, at -8, has a 36.3 percentile standing, which better than the headline index for the Monetary Union with a 25.4 percentile standing. The EMU-wide sector index, consumer confidence, improved to a net diffusion reading of -17.7 in June from -19 in May, but that still leaves it with a very weak 8.1 percentile standing, the lowest among sector readings. Retailing improved to a net diffusion reading of -10 in June from -11 in May and posted a 38.1 percentile standing. The construction sector deteriorated, falling back to -5 from -4 in May; it has been undergoing steady degradation since at least March, but it still has a 68.4 percentile standing. It is the only sector with a percentile standing above 50, placing it above its historic median. The services sector had a net diffusion reading of +3, identical to its May reading and has a 24-percentile standing.

**Sector index ranking**
The sector readings clearly show that the monetary union is exhibiting a number of sectors with subpar growth; beyond ‘subpar,’ many are quite weak. The exception is—and has been for some time—the construction sector, which continues to perform above average and post an above-median metric. It is, perhaps surprising that we often think of consumer confidence as being relatively forward-looking, but in this schematic, consumer confidence is the weakest of the sectors; in fact, like statistics from the U.S., we find the same prevailing situation with consumer readings exceptionally weak. These weak consumer readings coexist with much stronger retailing readings and stronger industrial readings, although both of those are below their historic medians in Europe. This report is a sort of gut check for what consumer confidence means; it may not be as important as we used to think it was. Although the business cycle at this juncture seems to be concentrated more on the supply side and on recovery in the business community, that effect compounded by the influence of AI is much stronger in the U.S. than in Europe.

**Country detail – Large economies**
The country detail shows 16 of 20 early reporting countries with only one of the top four countries showing a decline month-to-month, and that's France. France recorded a 0.2% decline in June, while Germany posted a 1.9% increase, Italy gained 1.3%, and Spain rose 0.7%. Spain had the lone small decrease in May, while in April all of the large countries showed significant monthly declines in their overall indexes in the wake of the onset of the war with Iran.

**Smaller economies in EMU**
Apart from the Big Four economies, 12 other EMU members report in June; of those, 5 showed month-to-month declines in their country level indexes. This was up from three showing declines in May, although it was a vast improvement from April, when all of the country indexes turned negative and generated substantial month-to-month declines, except for Slovakia and Lithuania.

**Big Four economy rankings**
Among the Big Four economies, the strongest ranking reading in June is Spain at a 52.3 percentile standing, followed by Italy at a 41.6 percentile standing, France at a 22.7 percentile standing, and Germany at an 18.7 percentile standing.

**Other economy rankings**
Among the other 12 countries, the percentile standing readings range from a high of 76.1% for Greece to a low of 9.3% for Austria. Five of 12 of the smaller EMU members have percentile standings of 50% or greater, putting them above their historic medians, while the other 7 have rankings that range from a high of 44.6% in Portugal to a low of 9.3% in Austria.

**Summing up**
Conditions in the monetary union have improved over the last two months after a substantial stumble in the wake of the war in the Middle East with Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. However, the rebound in the European recovery is in gear; it is slow and measured. Conditions are still weak on balance.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

UK Mortgage Lending Up but Consumer Credit Down

Challenger Layoffs Lower Still

Gasoline Prices Stable Last Week, But ...

When Shoppers Shop ...

When Shoppers Shop ...

No Surprises in China's Balance of Payments and Trade Data

U.S. Construction Again Firm

ISM Activity & Pricing Indexes Up