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>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060207b.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales surged 2.0% during the opening week of February and recovered all of the prior week&#39;s sharp 1.1% decline, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey.
As a result of the jump, sales began the month 0.9% above the January average which rose 1.0% from December.
The rise in sales may have been aided by a two cent decline in gasoline prices at the pump to $2.34 per gallon of regular unleaded. The decline reversed most of the prior week&#39;s rise. Despite the decline, retail gasoline prices began February three cents higher than the January average with rose thirteen cents versus December. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060207a.jpg" width="353">
In spot market trading, gasoline prices recently have been quite soft. The decline from $1.74 last Monday extended to yesterday when prices hit $1.56, the lowest level since late December. Weak demand for gasoline may have caused the price weakness as gasoline demand fell 10% from December. Seasonal declines in demand of this order have been common during January in the past. The theory is complicated, however, by the abnormally warm temperatures last month.
The leading indicator of chain store sales reversed all of the prior week&#39;s rise and fell 0.6%.
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.

<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">02/04/06</th>
<th scope="col">01/28/06</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>462.9</td>
<td>454.0</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Chain store sales surged 2.0% during the opening week of February and recovered all of the prior week's sharp 1.1% decline, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey. As a result of the jump, sales [...]

Chain Store Sales Up, Gasoline Prices Down

<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/060207c.jpg" width="353">
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the job openings rate, from the Job Openings &amp; Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), rose again in December as the US job market firmed further. The rate rose to 2.9% from 2.8% in November and averaged 2.7% during the year, an improvement from 2.4% during 2004. The job openings rate is the number of job openings on the last business day of the month as a percent of total employment plus job openings.
The actual number of job openings rose 123,000 (15.5% y/y) to 4.05 million.
Not showing the same improvement, the hires rate slipped in December to 3.4% and fell during much of the year from a 1Q high of 3.6%. The hires rate is the number of hires during the month divided by employment. The hires level during December fell 134,000 (-2.8% y/y) to 4.507 million.
The job separations rate dropped sharply to 3.1%, the lowest level in nearly two years. Separations include quits, layoffs, discharges, and other separations as well as retirements. The total separations, or turnover, rate is the total number of separations during the month divided by employment. The level of job separations fell 182,000 (-6.8% y/y) to 4.133 million.
The survey dates only to December 2000 but has since followed the movement in nonfarm payrolls.
A description of the Jolts survey and the latest release from the U.S. Department of Labor is available <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm">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/@EB/@EB14/@EB14.HTM">JOLTS</a> (Job Openings &amp; Labor Turnover Survey)</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Nov</th>
<th scope="col">Dec &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Job Openings Rate: Total</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Hires Rate: Total</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Chain Store Sales Up, Gasoline Prices Down 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> February 7, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060207b.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales surged 2.0% during the opening week of February and recovered all of the prior week&#39;s sharp 1.1% decline, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey.
As a result of the jump, sales began the month 0.9% above the January average which rose 1.0% from December.
The rise in sales may have been aided by a two cent decline in gasoline prices at the pump to $2.34 per gallon of regular unleaded. The decline reversed most of the prior week&#39;s rise. Despite the decline, retail gasoline prices began February three cents higher than the January average with rose thirteen cents versus December. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060207a.jpg" width="353">
In spot market trading, gasoline prices recently have been quite soft. The decline from $1.74 last Monday extended to yesterday when prices hit $1.56, the lowest level since late December. Weak demand for gasoline may have caused the price weakness as gasoline demand fell 10% from December. Seasonal declines in demand of this order have been common during January in the past. The theory is complicated, however, by the abnormally warm temperatures last month.
The leading indicator of chain store sales reversed all of the prior week&#39;s rise and fell 0.6%.
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.

<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">02/04/06</th>
<th scope="col">01/28/06</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>462.9</td>
<td>454.0</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Germany: December Industrial Production Suggests a Slow Q4 in 2005, Labor Unrest Ahead?  
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> February 7, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060207d.jpg" width="353">
There was more news from Germany that economic activity slowed significantly in the fourth quarter. Declines in December retail sales, new orders and sales in manufacturing and mining have already been reported and today we learn that industrial production fell 0.5% in December from November after having fallen 0.4% in the previous month. Production of intermediate and energy goods increased but were outweighed by declines in the production of capital and consumer goods.The increase in the quarterly average of industrial production for the fourth quarter was 1.05%, a decline from the 1.56% increase of the third quarter. As shown in the first chart the quarter-to-quarter change in industrial production tends to suggest the change in real gross domestic product.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060207e.jpg" width="353">
Also in the news were reports of labor unrest in Germany. Ten thousand workers, members of the public service union, Verdi, began a strike in Baden-Wurttember on February 6th. Targeted services include waste disposal, road maintenance, hospitals and kindergartens. The issues are wages and hours. Wages have shown little increase in the past few years and the workers are now being asked to work longer hours at the same pay. The IG Metall engineering union is also stirring. It will start negotiations this week over its demand for a 5% rise for its 3.4 million industrial workers. The second chart shows the year-to-year changes in the compensation of workers in Total Industry ex Construction and in Public and Personal Services. The increases, particularly in the Public and Personal Services have been well below the roughly 2% inflation rate that has prevailed recently. These data, along with data for productivity and unit labor costs are found in Haver&#39;s Germany data base. The data are quarterly and were last updated in November 22. Data for the fourth quarter should be available later this month.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/GERMANY/GERMANY.HTM">Germany: Industrial Production</a> (2000=100)</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 05</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 05 </th>
<th scope="col">Q1 05</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 04</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 04</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>105.1</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>101.6</td>
<td>-1047</td>
<td>3.44</td>
<td>103.6</td>
<td>100.8</td>
<td>98.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Intermediate products</td>
<td>110.2</td>
<td>109.8</td>
<td>104.9</td>
<td>0.36</td>
<td>5.05</td>
<td>106.8</td>
<td>103.4</td>
<td>99.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Capital goods</td>
<td>111.6</td>
<td>114.3</td>
<td>104.8</td>
<td>-2.36</td>
<td>6.49</td>
<td>110.9</td>
<td>105.7</td>
<td>102.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Consumer goods</td>
<td>97.6</td>
<td>97.8</td>
<td>96.9</td>
<td>-0.20</td>
<td>0.72</td>
<td>98.2</td>
<td>96.0</td>
<td>95.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Energy</td>
<td>103.0</td>
<td>101.6</td>
<td>105.8</td>
<td>1.38</td>
<td>-2.65</td>
<td>102.6</td>
<td>102.6</td>
<td>99.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Labor Costs Per Employee (euros)</td>
<td>Q3 05 &nbsp;% chg</td>
<td>Q2 05 &nbsp;% chg </td>
<td>Q1 05 % chg</td>
<td>Q4 04 &nbsp;% chg</td>
<td>Q3 04 &nbsp;% chg</td>
<td>2004 &nbsp;% chg</td>
<td>2003 % chg</td>
<td>2002 % chg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Industry ex construction</td>
<td>1.60</td>
<td>-0.67</td>
<td>1.92</td>
<td>-1.04</td>
<td>0.70</td>
<td>0.56</td>
<td>2.34</td>
<td>2.11</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Public and personal services</td>
<td>-1.34</td>
<td>-0.72</td>
<td>1.18</td>
<td>-1.45</td>
<td>-1.07</td>
<td>-.55</td>
<td>0.99</td>
<td>1.81</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the job openings rate, from the Job Openings & Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), rose again in December as the US job market firmed further. The rate rose to 2.9% from 2.8% in November and [...]

JOLTS: More U.S. Job Openings, Less Hiring?

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/060206f.jpg" width="353">
German manufacturing and mining new orders faltered in December after having risen for the three previous months. The index (2000=100) for new orders declined by 1.61% from 118.1 in November to 116.2 in December but was 4.12% above December 2004. Domestic new orders fell 1.24% while foreign new orders fell 2.00% in December from November. The data were somewhat surprising in view of the big improvement in the IFO business climate measure in January, noted last week by Carol Stone.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060206e.jpg" width="353"> However, the business climate may have been affected more by the outlook than the immediate past. Moreover, the course of new orders has never been smooth as can be seen in the first chart that shows domestic and foreign new orders. While there is evidence of a strong upward trend in foreign new orders and a much weaker upward trend in domestic new orders, these trends have not been smooth. A one month decline has, more often than not, been followed by an increase that has raised the level of new orders above the previous peak.
Sales follow closely on new orders as can be seen in the second chart where sales and new orders are plotted. The correlation of .94 between the two series gives an R2 of .88, indicating that new orders account for .88% of the variation in sales.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060206g.jpg" width="353">
Just as foreign new orders have outpaced domestic orders foreign sales have been the dynamic area within the manufacturing and mining industries since late 2003 as shown in the third chart. The decline in the euro, starting in December 2004 has been a major factor in last year&#39;s rise. Domestic sales, on the other hand, have been hampered by a high level of unemployment and, more recently, by rising energy costs.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/GERMANY/@D6/@D6.HTM">Germany New Orders and Sales for Manufacturing and Mining (2000=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Q3 05&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 05 </th>
<th scope="col">Q1 04</th>
<th scope="col">Q/Q %</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2004 </th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total New Orders Nominal</td>
<td>116.2</td>
<td>118.1</td>
<td>111.6</td>
<td>-1.61</td>
<td>4.12</td>
<td>111.4</td>
<td>104.8</td>
<td>99.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Domestic</td>
<td>103.4</td>
<td>104.7</td>
<td>105.4</td>
<td>-1.24</td>
<td>-1.90</td>
<td>101.1</td>
<td>98.3</td>
<td>94.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Foreign</td>
<td>132.2</td>
<td>134.9</td>
<td>119.4</td>
<td>-1.92</td>
<td>11.06</td>
<td>124.3</td>
<td>112.5</td>
<td>103.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Sales Nominal</td>
<td>111.7</td>
<td>112.6</td>
<td>106.3</td>
<td>-0.80</td>
<td>5.08</td>
<td>110.1</td>
<td>105.2</td>
<td>100.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Domestic</td>
<td>102.4</td>
<td>103.0</td>
<td>100.2</td>
<td>-0.58</td>
<td>2.20</td>
<td>101.8</td>
<td>99.4</td>
<td>96.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Foreign</td>
<td>126.6</td>
<td>128.1</td>
<td>116.1</td>
<td>-1.17</td>
<td>9.04</td>
<td>123.2</td>
<td>114.5</td>
<td>106.7&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

German manufacturing and mining new orders faltered in December after having risen for the three previous months. The index (2000=100) for new orders declined by 1.61% from 118.1 in November to 116.2 in December but was 4.12% above [...]

German New Orders and Sales Decline in December

<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/060206c.jpg" width="353">
Friday&#39;s gold price of $569 per ounce underscored concerns that inflationary price pressures continue to build. Since 1980 there has been a 66% correlation between the level of gold prices and the y/y change in consumer prices. Gold prices, certainly, have been higher. In 1980 they neared $700 per ounce. But gold prices reflect and do not cause higher prices. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060206b.jpg" width="353">
Higher oil prices fueled much of the real concern. On Friday, spot WTI crude stood at $65.38 per barrel. That was down slightly from earlier highs near $68 but prices nevertheless remained up 44% from the year ago level.
Conversely, U.S. economic pressures that might generate inflation have subsided recently. Monetary pressures certainly are down as a result of the Fed&#39;s efforts to raise interest rates. Growth in the monetary base and M2 both have decelerated to roughly 4%, a 50% deceleration from earlier rates of growth generated to combat deflation fears.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060206a.jpg" width="353">
Real economic growth also has slowed. After surpassing the Congressional Budget Office&#39;s estimate of potential for just two years, U.S. GDP growth at 3.1% through 4Q05 is back down to potential. A separate calculation of the U.S. economy&#39;s potential, however, suggests that less pressure built up (see chart) when the economy was stronger.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060206d.jpg" width="353">
Imported inflation? With economic growth perking up abroad the question might be asked. But during the last five years growth in the major seven OECD countries has averaged a sub par 2.2%, well below the 3.0% rates of growth during the late 1990s and the 4.0% growth rates during the late 1980s. Additionally, the real value of the U.S. dollar against its major trading partners recently has strengthed.
The Long-Run Benefits of Sustained Low Inflation from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis can be found <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/net/20060201/cover.pdf"> here</a>.
Energy Prices and the Economy, a 2004 article from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is available <a href="http://www.dallasfed.org/research/indepth/2004/id0402.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/WEEKLY/@W4/@W4.HTM">Weekly Prices</a></th>
<th scope="col">01/31/06</th>
<th scope="col">12/27/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Light Sweet Crude Oil, WTI&nbsp; (per bbl.)</td>
<td>$67.93</td>
<td>$58.16</td>
<td>44.1%</td>
<td>$57.59</td>
<td>$41.73</td>
<td>$31.00</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Gold: Handy &amp; Harmon (per Troy Oz.)</td>
<td>$568.75</td>
<td>$507.40</td>
<td>35.1%</td>
<td>$447.13</td>
<td>$411.72</td>
<td>$367.78</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Friday's gold price of $569 per ounce underscored concerns that inflationary price pressures continue to build. Since 1980 there has been a 66% correlation between the level of gold prices and the y/y change in consumer prices. Gold [...]

Gold & Oil Prices Higher 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/060206c.jpg" width="353">
Friday&#39;s gold price of $569 per ounce underscored concerns that inflationary price pressures continue to build. Since 1980 there has been a 66% correlation between the level of gold prices and the y/y change in consumer prices. Gold prices, certainly, have been higher. In 1980 they neared $700 per ounce. But gold prices reflect and do not cause higher prices. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060206b.jpg" width="353">
Higher oil prices fueled much of the real concern. On Friday, spot WTI crude stood at $65.38 per barrel. That was down slightly from earlier highs near $68 but prices nevertheless remained up 44% from the year ago level.
Conversely, U.S. economic pressures that might generate inflation have subsided recently. Monetary pressures certainly are down as a result of the Fed&#39;s efforts to raise interest rates. Growth in the monetary base and M2 both have decelerated to roughly 4%, a 50% deceleration from earlier rates of growth generated to combat deflation fears.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060206a.jpg" width="353">
Real economic growth also has slowed. After surpassing the Congressional Budget Office&#39;s estimate of potential for just two years, U.S. GDP growth at 3.1% through 4Q05 is back down to potential. A separate calculation of the U.S. economy&#39;s potential, however, suggests that less pressure built up (see chart) when the economy was stronger.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060206d.jpg" width="353">
Imported inflation? With economic growth perking up abroad the question might be asked. But during the last five years growth in the major seven OECD countries has averaged a sub par 2.2%, well below the 3.0% rates of growth during the late 1990s and the 4.0% growth rates during the late 1980s. Additionally, the real value of the U.S. dollar against its major trading partners recently has strengthed.
The Long-Run Benefits of Sustained Low Inflation from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis can be found <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/net/20060201/cover.pdf"> here</a>.
Energy Prices and the Economy, a 2004 article from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is available <a href="http://www.dallasfed.org/research/indepth/2004/id0402.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/WEEKLY/@W4/@W4.HTM">Weekly Prices</a></th>
<th scope="col">01/31/06</th>
<th scope="col">12/27/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Light Sweet Crude Oil, WTI&nbsp; (per bbl.)</td>
<td>$67.93</td>
<td>$58.16</td>
<td>44.1%</td>
<td>$57.59</td>
<td>$41.73</td>
<td>$31.00</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Gold: Handy &amp; Harmon (per Troy Oz.)</td>
<td>$568.75</td>
<td>$507.40</td>
<td>35.1%</td>
<td>$447.13</td>
<td>$411.72</td>
<td>$367.78</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
German New Orders and Sales Decline in December  
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> February 6, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060206f.jpg" width="353">
German manufacturing and mining new orders faltered in December after having risen for the three previous months. The index (2000=100) for new orders declined by 1.61% from 118.1 in November to 116.2 in December but was 4.12% above December 2004. Domestic new orders fell 1.24% while foreign new orders fell 2.00% in December from November. The data were somewhat surprising in view of the big improvement in the IFO business climate measure in January, noted last week by Carol Stone.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060206e.jpg" width="353"> However, the business climate may have been affected more by the outlook than the immediate past. Moreover, the course of new orders has never been smooth as can be seen in the first chart that shows domestic and foreign new orders. While there is evidence of a strong upward trend in foreign new orders and a much weaker upward trend in domestic new orders, these trends have not been smooth. A one month decline has, more often than not, been followed by an increase that has raised the level of new orders above the previous peak.
Sales follow closely on new orders as can be seen in the second chart where sales and new orders are plotted. The correlation of .94 between the two series gives an R2 of .88, indicating that new orders account for .88% of the variation in sales.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060206g.jpg" width="353">
Just as foreign new orders have outpaced domestic orders foreign sales have been the dynamic area within the manufacturing and mining industries since late 2003 as shown in the third chart. The decline in the euro, starting in December 2004 has been a major factor in last year&#39;s rise. Domestic sales, on the other hand, have been hampered by a high level of unemployment and, more recently, by rising energy costs.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/GERMANY/@D6/@D6.HTM">Germany New Orders and Sales for Manufacturing and Mining (2000=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Q3 05&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 05</th>
<th scope="col">Q1 04</th>
<th scope="col">Q/Q %</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total New Orders Nominal</td>
<td>116.2</td>
<td>118.1</td>
<td>111.6</td>
<td>-1.61</td>
<td>4.12</td>
<td>111.4</td>
<td>104.8</td>
<td>99.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Domestic</td>
<td>103.4</td>
<td>104.7</td>
<td>105.4</td>
<td>-1.24</td>
<td>-1.90</td>
<td>101.1</td>
<td>98.3</td>
<td>94.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Foreign</td>
<td>132.2</td>
<td>134.9</td>
<td>119.4</td>
<td>-1.92</td>
<td>11.06</td>
<td>124.3</td>
<td>112.5</td>
<td>103.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Sales Nominal</td>
<td>111.7</td>
<td>112.6</td>
<td>106.3</td>
<td>-0.80</td>
<td>5.08</td>
<td>110.1</td>
<td>105.2</td>
<td>100.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Domestic</td>
<td>102.4</td>
<td>103.0</td>
<td>100.2</td>
<td>-0.58</td>
<td>2.20</td>
<td>101.8</td>
<td>99.4</td>
<td>96.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Foreign</td>
<td>126.6</td>
<td>128.1</td>
<td>116.1</td>
<td>-1.17</td>
<td>9.04</td>
<td>123.2</td>
<td>114.5</td>
<td>106.7&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Carol Stone, CBE

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060203g.jpg" width="353">
International trade for Australia looks to be very dynamic process. The trade balance widened to a significant deficit in 2003 and 2004, but moderated considerably in 2005, mirroring a pattern of decline and then rapid turnaround in exports. Exports fell 9.3% in 2003, but recovered almost exactly that amount in 2004. Then last year, they surged ahead 17.8% for the year as a whole, with 9.0% in the month of December alone over November. Exports in December, as seen in the table below, grew a whopping 28.5% from December 2004.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060203h.jpg" width="353">
At the same time, imports have not been sluggish, as they were up 10% for 2005 as a whole. As elsewhere, some of this was oil-price related, with imports of mineral fuels, lubricants and related up 34% for the year, following 28% in 2004. Chemicals also rose by more than 10%. Other manufactured goods weren&#39;t that strong, but they gained in a range of 8%-9%, so they were hardly weak.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060203i.jpg" width="353">
The two most interesting developments in Australian trade -- at least in our view -- concern metals exports and exports to China. These may be related, but available data can&#39;t confirm that. The third graph is very suggestive, however. Exports to China rose 45.5% in 2005, with a final spurt in December carrying them to A$1.8 billion, up nearly 66% from December 2004. (For comparison, shipments to the US, which were larger than those to China as recently as 2003, were relatively flat at about A$800 million/month from then until late last year.) Among kinds of goods Australia has exported, non-food crude materials also increased substantially, 29% for the year and 49% December-on-December. Over the past five years, the monthly pattern of the year-to-year changes in these raw materials has a 76% correlation with growth in exports to China. Australia is a major producer of copper and aluminum; it may well be that they are shipping considerable quantities of those metals to their large neighbor to the north. This would bode well for both countries, a fine illustration of the &quot;gains from trade&quot;, and would help minimize Australia&#39;s trade deficit with China.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/ANZ/@A1/@A109/@A1098/@A1098.HTM">Australia Trade (Mil.A$)</a></th>
Month/Month
<th scope="col">Yr/Yr</th>
Monthly Average
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Dec 2005*</td>
<td>Nov 2005*</td>
<td>Oct 2005*</td>
<td>Dec 2004*</td>
<td>2005</td>
<td>2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Goods &amp; Services: Balance</td>
<td>-1168</td>
<td>-2473</td>
<td>-1371</td>
<td>-2480</td>
<td>-1668</td>
<td>-2102</td>
<td>-1818</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Goods: Exports</td>
<td>13214</td>
<td>12129</td>
<td>11999</td>
<td>10229</td>
<td>11619</td>
<td>9848</td>
<td>9067</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; % Change</td>
<td>9.0</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>28.5**</td>
<td>17.8</td>
<td>9.4</td>
<td>-9.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Goods: Imports</td>
<td>14150</td>
<td>14227</td>
<td>13285</td>
<td>12502</td>
<td>13163</td>
<td>11875</td>
<td>10974</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; % Change</td>
<td>-1.9</td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>9.3**</td>
<td>10.1</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>1.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">China: Exports (NSA)</td>
<td>1827</td>
<td>1419</td>
<td>1509</td>
<td>1102</td>
<td>1336</td>
<td>918</td>
<td>757</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">USA: Exports (NSA)</td>
<td>914</td>
<td>840</td>
<td>773</td>
<td>835</td>
<td>772</td>
<td>796</td>
<td>788</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

International trade for Australia looks to be very dynamic process. The trade balance widened to a significant deficit in 2003 and 2004, but moderated considerably in 2005, mirroring a pattern of decline and then rapid turnaround in [...]

Large Shipments to China Help Australia Trade Balance

<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/060203c.jpg" width="353">
Factory inventories grew 0.5% during December following an upwardly revised 0.3% increase during November. During the year, the rate of inventory accumulation slowed to 4.3% from 7.7% during 2004.
The rise last year in oil prices actually dampened the degree of that slowdown. During 2005, petroleum refineries&#39; inventories rose 26.0%. Less oil, factory inventories rose 3.4%, down from a 7.4% gain during 2004 and down from a 8.7% rate of accumulation early in the year.
December inventory accumulation was paced by a 0.8% (4.7% y/y) increase in primary metal which was the first monthly increase since May. Electrical equipment inventories also rose a strong 1.0% (5.7% y/y) but inventories of computers &amp; electronic products fell 0.9% (0.5% y/y) and that y/y gain was down from +7.1% last January. Machinery inventories rose just 0.1% (6.4% y/y), half the annual rate of accumulation early in the year.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060203f.jpg" width="353">
Factory shipments surged 2.2% but the gain was pumped by a 14.4% (83.8% y/y) rise in nondefense aircraft and a 4.2% (-0.2% y/y) gain in motor vehicles &amp; parts. Less transportation altogether as well as petroleum, shipments rose 0.9% (5.1% y/y).
Total factory orders rose 1.1% and the advance report of a 1.3% rise in durable goods orders was revised up to 1.8%.
Unfilled orders surged another 2.4% powered by a 7.6% (55.8% y/y) rise in backlogs for nondefense aircraft orders. Less the transportation sector, backlogs rose 0.5% (10.0% y/y) and the ratio of total unfilled orders to shipments fell.<a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/05/07/Gali.pdf"> </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/@ED/@ED01/@ED0101/@ED01016/@ED01016.HTM">Factory Survey</a> (NAICS)</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Nov</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">Inventories</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">New Orders</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>10.5%</td>
<td>8.4%</td>
<td>9.3%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Shipments</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>7.2%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>9.5%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Unfilled Orders</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>16.3%</td>
<td>16.3%</td>
<td>8.4%</td>
<td>8.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Factory inventories grew 0.5% during December following an upwardly revised 0.3% increase during November. During the year, the rate of inventory accumulation slowed to 4.3% from 7.7% during 2004. The rise last year in oil prices [...]

U.S. Factory Inventory Accumulation Slowed

<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/060203d.jpg" width="353">
The University of Michigan reported that consumer sentiment for all of January fell a slight 0.3% from December to 91.2. The decline was due to a fall late in the month and compared to an initial read of 93.4. Consensus expectations had been for 93.0 for the full month.
During the last ten years there has been a 76% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the y/y change in real consumer spending.
The current conditions index rose just 1.1% compared to a mid-month 2.7% increase. The reading of buying conditions for large household goods rose less than initially estimated and the reading of personal finances showed the same, slight decline (-4.1% y/y). Consumers&#39; assessment of gov&#39;t economic policy (-11.2% y/y) improved to the highest level since July.
Consumers&#39; expectations slipped 1.6% instead of increasing that amount as indicated mid-month. Expectations for personal finances fell sharply (-9.8% y/y).
The mean expected inflation rate for the next twelve months increased to 3.8% from 3.5% expected mid-month.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.The mid-month survey is based on telephone interviews with 250 households nationwide on personal finances and business and buying conditions. The survey is expanded to a total of 500 interviews at month end.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EF/@EF14/@EF1402/@EF1402.HTM">University of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jan&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>91.2</td>
<td>91.5</td>
<td>-4.5%</td>
<td>88.6</td>
<td>95.2</td>
<td>87.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>110.3</td>
<td>109.1</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>105.9</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>97.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Expectations</td>
<td>78.9</td>
<td>80.2</td>
<td>-7.9%</td>
<td>77.4</td>
<td>88.5</td>
<td>81.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The University of Michigan reported that consumer sentiment for all of January fell a slight 0.3% from December to 91.2. The decline was due to a fall late in the month and compared to an initial read of 93.4. Consensus expectations [...]

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Slipped Late in January

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

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

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

Michael J. Moran

260410L.jpg

260410M.jpg

The Consumer Price Index rose 0.9% in March, easily the sharpest monthly rise since the inflation burst in 2022. Although pronounced in magnitude, the increase was not surprising, as essentially all analysts had built in pressure from the energy sector. Energy prices jumped 10.9%, led by a surge of 21.2% in gasoline prices. Other energy components wiggled: charges for electricity services rose 0.8%, offsetting declines in the prior two months; a drop 0.9% in the price of natural gas services followed sharp increases in the prior three months.

The press report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed food prices as unchanged, but calculating the shift to more than one decimal point showed a marginal decline (-0.005%) The dip was almost imperceptible, but it nevertheless was a welcome rarity. The decline occurred in the food-at-home component (i.e. grocery store prices, -0.2%); prices of food away from home (i.e. at restaurants and bars) rose 0.2%.

Core prices rose 0.2 percent, softer than the expected increase of 0.3%. Only two areas posted high-side readings. Apparel prices increased 1.0% after a jump of 1.3% in February, perhaps reflecting hope for an active spring selling season. Airfares jumped 2.7%, hardly surprising in light of recent energy developments. Sharper increases are likely in coming months because of higher fuel prices. Most other core items were contained, including declines of 1.0% in medical-care commodities and 0.4% in the prices of used motor vehicles. Prices of medical-care commodities have been quiet since the middle of 2024; the latest year-over-year change totaled only 0.3%. Prices of used cars and trucks have declined for four consecutive months, leaving a year-over-year decline of 3.2%.

Although core prices were well contained in March, the outlook is uncertain because of potential passthrough from higher energy prices. At the same time, recent trends in the inflation rates for core goods and core services offer a reason to be optimistic, as both are decelerating. As shown in the left chart below, core goods prices in the past six months have been subdued, which has pulled the year-over-year change from 1.5% last fall (August to October) to 1.2% in March. Core service prices, shown in the right chart below, have registered changes of 0.3% or 0.4% in the three months before the 0.2% reading in March. However, results for October and November were restrained, and changes in the past six months in total show deceleration. The year-over-year change of 3.0% in core service prices in March reflects an advance of 3.3% in the first six months of this span (annual rate) and 2.7% in the past six months. The pattern is choppy, but it traces a decelerating trend.

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

260410N.jpg

260410O.jpg

- Gasoline prices drove the energy component higher; electricity prices also contributed.
- Food prices provided a surprise by posting a fractional decline.
- Core prices rose less than expected; both goods and services components were contained.

March CPI: Pressure in the Energy Sector (as Expected); Tame Elsewhere (Surprisingly)

Winnie Tapasanun

260410F.jpg

260410G.jpg

Total factory orders were virtually unchanged m/m in February following a flat reading in January and a 0.4% decline in December, data from the U.S. Census Bureau showed. The Action Economics Forecast Survey had expected a 0.2% m/m February increase. The year-on-year growth rate eased to 3.7% in February, the lowest since October, from 4.2% in January (+3.0% in February 2025), remaining far below the April 2021 peak of 39.6%. Notably, orders for nondefense aircraft & parts plunged 28.6% m/m in February following decreases of 1.7% in January and 22.7% in December, while orders for defense aircraft & parts fell 2.1% after a 26.9% January slump and an 11.8% December jump. Factory orders excluding defense edged up 0.1% (3.6% y/y), the third m/m increase in four months, following a 0.4% January rebound. Factory orders excluding the transportation sector rose 1.2% (2.5% y/y), the strongest of four consecutive m/m gains, after a 0.5% January increase.

Durable goods orders fell 1.3% (+7.4% y/y) in February after a 0.4% decline in January (in line with a 1.4% m/m decrease in the advance report on April 7), marking the fourth m/m decline in five months. The February m/m fall reflected a 5.3% orders drop (+10.2% y/y) in transportation equipment following a 1.9% January decrease, alongside m/m declines of 0.5% (+2.4% y/y) in furniture & related products and 0.3% (+4.9% y/y) in electrical equipment, appliances & components. Other major durable goods orders categories rose m/m in February, led by a 2.4% gain (10.5% y/y) in primary metals, followed by increases of 1.7% (9.5% y/y) in machinery, 0.5% (5.4% y/y) in fabricated metal products, and 0.2% (7.7% y/y) in computers & electronic products.

Nondurable goods orders, which equal nondurable goods shipments, advanced 1.5% (0.1% y/y) in February, the biggest of three successive m/m gains, after a 0.5% increase in January. The February m/m rise was led by a 6.2% jump (-6.4% y/y) in petroleum & coal products, followed by gains of 5.9% (-5.8% y/y) leather & allied products, 1.2% (-2.8% y/y) in textile mills, 1.0% (1.6% y/y) in paper products, 0.9% (1.2% y/y) in plastics & rubber products, 0.6% (3.7% y/y) in beverage & tobacco products, 0.5% (3.2% y/y) in chemical products, 0.4% (3.2% y/y) in apparel, and 0.2% (0.5% y/y) in food products. To the downside, nondurable goods shipments for textile products (-1.4%; -1.5% y/y) and printing (-0.4%; -0.9% y/y) fell m/m in February following their January increases.

Total shipments rose 1.4% (3.5% y/y) in February after gains of 0.7% in January and December, registering the fourth m/m rise in five months. Excluding transportation, shipments advanced 1.4% (2.3% y/y), the fifth m/m gain in six months, after a 0.5% January increase. Shipments of durable goods industries also rose 1.4% (6.9% y/y), up for the fifth time in six months, after a 0.9% January gain. This reflected m/m increases across nearly all durable goods shipments categories, led by a 2.5% rise (10.1% y/y) in primary metals, followed by gains of 1.7% (5.5% y/y) in electrical equipment, appliances & components, 1.7% (4.0% y/y) in furniture & related products, 1.6% (9.7% y/y) in transportation equipment, 1.4% (7.6% y/y) in machinery, 1.3% (3.8% y/y) in nonmetallic mineral products, 1.0% (6.1% y/y) in computers & electronic products, 1.0% (2.5% y/y) in miscellaneous durable goods, and 0.9% (5.4% y/y) in fabricated metal products. In contrast, durable goods shipments for wood products were the only category with a monthly decline in February, easing 0.1% (-2.9% y/y) following a flat January reading.

Unfilled orders edged up 0.1% (11.1% y/y) in February, the smallest of seven consecutive m/m increases, following a 0.6% rise in January. Excluding transportation, unfilled orders grew 0.2% (1.9% y/y), up for the seventh straight month, after a 0.3% January increase. Backlogs of durable goods ticked up 0.1% (11.1% y/y) in February, led by gains of 0.5% (2.0% y/y) in machinery and 0.2% (4.9% y/y) in electrical equipment, appliances & components, partially offset by declines of 0.7% (+1.5% y/y) in furniture & related products and 0.1% (+2.3% y/y) in primary metals.

Inventories inched up 0.1% (0.8% y/y) in February, the fourth successive m/m increase, following matching 0.1% gains in January and December. Excluding transportation, inventories edged up 0.1% (1.0% y/y) after no change in January. Durable goods inventories increased 0.1% (1.8% y/y) in February after rising 0.2% for four straight months, while nondurable goods inventories were virtually unchanged (-0.8% y/y) after declining 0.3% in January and December.

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

260410H.jpg

260410I.jpg

- Factory orders virtually unchanged (+3.7% y/y) in Feb. for second straight month; still 7.6% above the Jan. ’24 low.
- Durable goods orders (-1.3%), fourth m/m fall in five mths.; nondurable goods orders (+1.5%), largest of three successive m/m gains; shipments (+1.4%), fourth m/m rise in five mths.
- Transportation orders -5.3% m/m, led by a 28.6% plunge in nondefense aircraft orders.
- Unfilled orders +0.1%, smallest of seven straight m/m increases.
- Inventories +0.1%, holding within a narrow 0.1%-0.2% range for four consecutive mths.

U.S. Factory Orders Flat in February on Weak Nondefense Aircraft Orders

Andrew Cates

**Positive Growth Surprises, Negative Inflation Surprises—For Now**
The global macro backdrop heading into the latest Middle East shock was, by recent standards, relatively constructive. As the chart shows, growth data had been consistently surprising to the upside, while inflation surprises have been in negative territory—an unusually benign combination suggesting resilient activity alongside easing price pressures. What is striking, however, is that—at least through March and into early April—this pattern has not yet been meaningfully dislodged. For now, the data flow still reflects a world that was stabilising rather than deteriorating. That said, this is almost certainly a lagging signal. Supply-side shocks of this nature—particularly those centred on energy—tend to work with a delay but can be highly disruptive once they feed through. The risk, therefore, is that the current “goldilocks” surprise dynamic proves short-lived as higher energy costs, supply chain frictions and rising uncertainty begin to reshape the incoming data in the weeks ahead.

260409Z1.jpg

**Monetary Policy Expectations Shift as Easing Bets Are Repriced**
How policymakers respond to the evolving situation in the Middle East will be critical in shaping both market dynamics and the broader global outlook. This chart, based on the latest April Blue Chip Financial Forecasts survey, suggests that expectations are already beginning to shift. Forecasters are now less inclined to anticipate policy easing in the period ahead—particularly in the euro area, where expectations for rate cuts have been scaled back. Similarly, some of the easing previously priced for the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England has been pared back over the next 12 months. While this is not yet a full pivot toward tightening, it does point to a more cautious policy backdrop, reflecting the risk that renewed energy-driven inflation pressures could constrain central banks’ ability to support growth.

260409Z2.jpg

**Delay, Don’t Tighten: Central Banks’ Likely Playbook**
If the previous chart highlights a shift in policy expectations, this one gives a clearer sense of the reaction function underpinning it. When asked how central banks would respond if energy-driven inflation proves more persistent, most panellists point not to renewed tightening, but to a more cautious delay in easing. In other words, the hurdle for rate cuts has risen, even if the bar for  hikes remains relatively high. This distinction matters. It suggests that policymakers are likely to treat the shock as a supply-driven inflation impulse—one that complicates the outlook but does not automatically warrant aggressive tightening. At the same time, the responses underscore a second important theme: divergence. A sizeable share of forecasters expect policy paths to vary significantly across regions, reflecting differences in energy exposure, inflation dynamics and domestic growth conditions. Taken together, the message is one of constrained flexibility. Central banks may want to support growth, but persistent energy pressures could keep them on hold for longer than previously anticipated—reinforcing the more cautious policy outlook already evident in market pricing.

260409Z3.jpg

**Markets Signal Fiscal Concern, Not Inflation Panic**
If central banks are likely to proceed cautiously, financial markets are already beginning to draw their own conclusions. This chart shows that the recent adjustment in US Treasury markets has been driven primarily by a rise in real yields rather than a meaningful increase in inflation expectations. In other words, markets are not yet pricing a loss of monetary policy credibility or a sharp unanchoring of inflation expectations. Instead, the move points more toward concerns around the broader policy mix—particularly the fiscal backdrop and the potential for increased borrowing needs in an environment of heightened geopolitical risk. This distinction is important. A rise in inflation expectations would suggest fears of central banks falling behind the curve. What we are seeing instead is a repricing of real rates, consistent with tighter financial conditions and a higher risk premium. For now, at least, markets appear to view the shock less as a classic inflation spiral and more as a development that complicates the growth outlook and places greater strain on policy frameworks—especially on the fiscal side.

260409Z4.jpg

**Electricity Prices Reflect Energy Dependence**
The initial response in electricity markets since the Middle East disruption has followed a familiar pattern. Economies with greater domestic energy capacity—such as Scandinavia and, to a lesser extent, the US—have seen relatively contained electricity prices. By contrast, those more reliant on imported energy—most notably the UK and parts of Europe—continue to face significantly higher costs

260409Z5.jpg

**Generation Capacity Determines Energy Resilience**
These price dynamics are closely linked to underlying differences in electricity generation capacity. As the sixth chart shows, countries with higher per capita electricity production—again including Scandinavia and the US—are structurally better positioned to absorb external shocks. In contrast, economies with more limited domestic generation capacity, such as the UK and Germany, are inherently more exposed to fluctuations in global energy markets. This structural divide is likely to prove increasingly important in the period ahead, influencing not just near-term inflation outcomes but also the relative resilience of growth across economies as energy costs remain volatile.

260409Z6.jpg

Amid further tentative signs of de-escalation—most notably President Trump’s decision on April 7th to step back from further escalation—financial markets have stabilised somewhat, but the macroeconomic implications of the Middle East crisis remain highly uncertain. As our charts show, the global economy entered this shock from a position of relative strength, with positive growth surprises and easing inflation pressures still evident in the data (chart 1). However, that benign backdrop now looks vulnerable. Central banks are already reassessing the outlook, with expectations for policy easing being pared back (chart 2) and a growing consensus that any response to persistent energy-driven inflation will likely involve delaying cuts rather than tightening aggressively—albeit with significant regional divergence (chart 3). Financial markets, for their part, are not yet signalling a loss of inflation control, but the rise in real yields suggests increasing concern around the broader policy mix, particularly fiscal pressures (chart 4). Finally, the adjustment to the shock is unlikely to be uniform. Structural differences in domestic energy capacity are already driving wide divergences in electricity prices, leaving more import-dependent economies exposed to higher costs and sharper trade-offs between growth and inflation (charts 5 and 6). Taken together, the message is clear: even if geopolitical tensions ease, the economic aftershocks are likely to be uneven, persistent and increasingly shaped by structural constraints.

<iframe data-testid="embed-iframe" style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/4qBjHX7OmdXmxVN2oRe1nB?utm_source=generator" width="100%" height="152" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" loading="lazy"></iframe>

Charts of the Week: From Oil Shock to Policy Dilemma

260409A.jpg

260409B.jpg

This monthly report is always packed with information relating to the household sector. At this time, most observers will probably be most interested in price developments, and the results for February were a bit unsettling. The headline price index rose 0.4%, influenced by a jump of 0.8% in energy prices. This increase was largely anticipated and not especially troubling when viewed in isolation. Energy prices have shown little net change in the past two years, and the latest reading of the index was comfortably within the recent range of observations. However, given developments in the Middle East, energy prices undoubtedly will surge out of that recent range in the months ahead.

Core PCE prices also rose 0.4%, a touch firmer than the expected increase of 0.3%. An increase of 0.4% in core inflation is a quick pace even when viewed in Isolation, but this advance followed a similar increase in January, and the December reading almost rounded to 0.4%. These recent changes pulled the year-over-year increase in core prices to 3.0%, a full percentage point above the Federal Reserve’s target.

Nominal personal income dipped 0.1% in February, which translated to a decline of 0.4% after adjusting for inflation (almost rounding to -0.5%). The softness is striking, but a review of the detail suggests that special factors played a role. Much of the weakness reflected a decline of 1.7% in dividend income, which followed a jump of 1.9% in January. Dividend payments in the prior two years followed the same pattern, leaving one to suspect that seasonal adjustment has gone awry. Government transfer payments also declined, with the miscellaneous category accounting for most of the drop. Medicaid payments also fell, marking the fifth consecutive decline, most likely driven by the tightening of provisions included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Nominal consumer expenditures rose 0.5%, a seemingly strong result, but the change amounted to only 0.1% in real terms. The small increase followed a flat reading in January and increases of only 0.1% in November and December. Consumers spent actively in the second and third quarters of last year, but they have become cautious recently. The data in hand suggest real outlay growth of approximately 1.0% in the first quarter, slower than the average pace of 3.0% in the middle of last year and 1.9% in 2025-Q4.

The personal income and consumption figures are available in Haver’s **USECON** database with detail in the **USNA** database. The Action Economics forecasts are in **AS1REPNA**.

260409C.jpg

260409D.jpg

- The energy component contributed to a high-side reading on the price index for personal consumption expenditures; the core component was firm as well.
- Consumer spending showed signs of slowing.

Personal Income, Consumption, and Prices: Higher Prices Dampen Real Gains

Sandy Batten

260409N1.jpg

260409C1.jpg

The third estimate of Q4 2025 GDP showed that real GDP growth slowed to 0.5% q/q saar versus 0.7% in the second estimate and 1.4% in the advance estimate. GDP had grown 4.4% in Q3. The more than one-month long shutdown of the federal government continued to have been a notable restraint on GDP growth in Q4, subtracting 1.0%-point from overall growth, the same as in the second estimate.

Revisions were very small across major expenditure categories. Growth of personal consumption expenditures was revised down slightly to 1.9% q/q saar from 2.0% previously. Nonresidential fixed investment increased 2.4%, up slightly from the 2.2% reported in the second estimate. The 0.5% q/q decline previously reported for residential investment was revised to a larger decline of 1.7%, subtracting 0.1%-point from overall growth versus 0.0%-point in the previous estimate. Inventories declined more than previously estimated, reducing their contribution to growth from 0.3%-point in the second estimate to 0.1%-point in today’s estimate.

260409O1.jpg

260409P1.jpg

There were slight downward revisions to the declines previously reported for both exports and imports, leaving net exports essentially unrevised. As already noted, a 16.6% q/q saar plunge in federal government spending (revised down slightly from -16.7%) accounted for most of the weakness in Q4. This included a 24.3% q/q collapse in nondefense spending, the second largest quarterly decline in nearly forty years. By contrast, state and local government spending increased 1.5%, revised up from 1.2% in the previous estimate.

Private domestic demand growth (final sales to private domestic purchasers, a favored gauge of demand by the Federal Reserve) was revised slower to 1.8% q/q saar in Q4 from 1.9% in the second estimate and 2.4% in the advance report. However, even the revised pace of growth is respectable and close to the economy’s potential growth rate.

The GDP data can be found in Haver’s **USECON** and **USNA** databases. **USNA** contains virtually all of the Bureau of Economic Analysis detail in the national accounts. The Action Economics consensus estimates can be found in **AS1REPNA**.

260409Q1.jpg

260409S1.jpg

- Q4 GDP growth revised to 0.5% q/q saar from 0.7% in the first revision and 1.4% in the advance report.
- The shutdown of the federal government still played a critical role in the slowdown, subtracting 1.0%-point from Q4 growth.
- Domestic demand slowed further with final sales to private domestic purchasers revised down to 1.8% from 1.9% in the first revision and 2.4% in the advance report.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

Chain Store Sales Up, Gasoline Prices Down

JOLTS: More U.S. Job Openings, Less Hiring?

German New Orders and Sales Decline in December

Gold & Oil Prices Higher Still

Gold & Oil Prices Higher Still

Large Shipments to China Help Australia Trade Balance

U.S. Factory Inventory Accumulation Slowed

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Slipped Late in January