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/051115g.jpg" width="353">
The overall Producer Price Index rose another 0.7% last month on top of the 1.9% September spike. The latest by far exceeded Consensus expectations for no change in prices.
The strength last month was led by a 12.3% (50.4% y/y) rise in home heating oil prices and a 12.7% (38.9% y/y) jump in natural gas which more than offset the 3.3% (+40.3% y/y) decline in gasoline.
Price inflation at the so called &quot;core&quot; level nevertheless eased a bit last month as a 0.3% decline in prices less food &amp; energy reversed all of the prior month&#39;s gain. Consensus expectations for a 0.2% increase.
Core finished consumer goods prices fell 0.2% (+2.0% y/y). Durable goods prices dropped 0.9% (+0.2% y/y) led by a 3.0% (-2.1% y/y) decline in passenger car prices as well as weakness in prices for home electronics (-2.0% y/y), carpets (+6.1% y/y) and home appliances (+1.7% y/y). Core consumer nondurable goods prices rose 0.2% (3.5% y/y) for the second consecutive month.
&quot;Spillover&quot; effects from the past strength in oil prices continued to be evident at the earlier stages of processing. Intermediate goods prices jumped 3.0% on top of the 2.5% September surge while core intermediate goods prices repeated their 1.2% spike of the prior month.
Crude energy prices gained 12.4% (69.4% y/y) as natural gas prices soared an unadjusted 20.3% (120.4% y/y). The gain lifted overall crude prices 6.7% though core crude prices reversed some of their September strength with a 1.2% decline. During the last thirty years &quot;core&quot; crude prices have been a fair indicator of industrial sector activity with a 48% correlation between the six month change in core crude prices and the change in factory sector industrial production.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">Oct</th>
<th scope="col">Sept</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">Finished Goods</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>10.5%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>10.2%</td>
<td>31.5%</td>
<td>17.5%</td>
<td>25.1%</td>
<td>-10.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>26.6%</td>
<td>12.4%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The overall Producer Price Index rose another 0.7% last month on top of the 1.9% September spike. The latest by far exceeded Consensus expectations for no change in prices. The strength last month was led by a 12.3% (50.4% y/y) rise [...]

PPI Up Another 0.7%, Core Prices Fell

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051115g.jpg" width="353">
The overall Producer Price Index rose another 0.7% last month on top of the 1.9% September spike. The latest by far exceeded Consensus expectations for no change in prices.
The strength last month was led by a 12.3% (50.4% y/y) rise in home heating oil prices and a 12.7% (38.9% y/y) jump in natural gas which more than offset the 3.3% (+40.3% y/y) decline in gasoline.
Price inflation at the so called &quot;core&quot; level nevertheless eased a bit last month as a 0.3% decline in prices less food &amp; energy reversed all of the prior month&#39;s gain. Consensus expectations for a 0.2% increase.
Core finished consumer goods prices fell 0.2% (+2.0% y/y). Durable goods prices dropped 0.9% (+0.2% y/y) led by a 3.0% (-2.1% y/y) decline in passenger car prices as well as weakness in prices for home electronics (-2.0% y/y), carpets (+6.1% y/y) and home appliances (+1.7% y/y). Core consumer nondurable goods prices rose 0.2% (3.5% y/y) for the second consecutive month.
&quot;Spillover&quot; effects from the past strength in oil prices continued to be evident at the earlier stages of processing. Intermediate goods prices jumped 3.0% on top of the 2.5% September surge while core intermediate goods prices repeated their 1.2% spike of the prior month.
Crude energy prices gained 12.4% (69.4% y/y) as natural gas prices soared an unadjusted 20.3% (120.4% y/y). The gain lifted overall crude prices 6.7% though core crude prices reversed some of their September strength with a 1.2% decline. During the last thirty years &quot;core&quot; crude prices have been a fair indicator of industrial sector activity with a 48% correlation between the six month change in core crude prices and the change in factory sector industrial production.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">Oct</th>
<th scope="col">Sept</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">Finished Goods</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>10.5%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>10.2%</td>
<td>31.5%</td>
<td>17.5%</td>
<td>25.1%</td>
<td>-10.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>26.6%</td>
<td>12.4%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Retail Sales Dip 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> November 15, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051115c.jpg" width="353">
US retail sales dipped 0.1% last month as consumers shifted away from autos and spent elsewhere. The decline followed a little revised 0.3% September gain but compared favorably to Consensus expectations for a 0.6% decline because less autos, retail sales surged 0.9%. That increase was three times the Consensus expectation and the 1.4% September increase was upwardly revised.
Sales at gasoline service stations fell 0.8% after a 5.1% pop in September which was driven by a 16.8% rise in the retail price of gasoline. Gas prices reversed about half of that gain in October and have fallen another 14% so far in November.
Less gasoline, nonauto retail sales rose 1.1% (7.8% y/y) following an upwardly revised 0.8% gain in September. The increase was boosted again by strength in building material sales which jumped 2.1% (13.1% Y/Y) for the third consecutive month of strong gain.
Discretionary spending continued strong as evidenced by a 0.6% (8.2% y/y) rise in furniture &amp; electronics store sales which followed an upwardly revised 1.4% September surge. Sales of nonstore retailers (internet &amp; catalogue) jumped 1.2% (12.2% y/y) and general merchandise store sales rose 1.2% (7.1% y/y). Apparel store sales in October made up for the prior month&#39;s dip and ballooned 3.1% (6.5% y/y) even though apparel prices recently have been under pressure (-0.7% y/y thru September). 
Today&#39;s U.S. Senate Testimony of Ben S. Bernanke is available <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2005/20051115/default.htm">here</a>.
Oil Prices and Consumer Spending from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond is available <a href="http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/economic_research/economic_quarterly/pdfs/summer2005/mehrapetersen.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">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Oct</th>
<th scope="col">Sept</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>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/usecon/@ED/@ED04/@ED0401/@ED0401.HTM">Retail Sales &amp; Food Services</a></td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding Autos</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>9.9%</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Chain Store Sales Backpedaled, Gas Prices Down 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> November 15, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051115h.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales gave back last week about half of the prior period&#39;s strong gain and fell 0.6% according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey. Nevertheless, the average level of sales in November remained 1.0% above October which rose 0.1% from the prior month
The average US retail price of regular gasoline fell another 8 cents last week to $2.30 per gallon (+16.6 y/y). Yesterday, the spot market price for gasoline was down another 3 cents from the prior week.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051115d.jpg" width="353">
During the last ten years there has been a 56% correlation between the y/y change in chain store sales and the change in non-auto retail sales less gasoline, as published by the US Census Department. Chain store sales correspond directly with roughly 14% of non-auto retail sales less gasoline.
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC gained 0.3% (-2.9% y/y) during the latest week following an upwardly revised 0.2% gain the prior week.
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></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">11/12/05</th>
<th scope="col">11/05/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</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>453.3</td>
<td>456.1</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Empire State Index Back Up 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> November 15, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051115f.jpg" width="353">
The November Empire State Index of General Business Conditions in New York&#39;s manufacturing industries regained all of the prior month&#39;s decline and rose 10.7 points to 22.82, the highest level since August. Consensus expectations had been for less of an increase to 15.0.
Since the series&#39; inception in 2001 there has been a close 80% correlation between the index level and the three month change in factory sector production.
Shipments recovered most of the October decline and the employment index jumped to 7.7 points to the highest level in over a year. The new orders index also added a bit to the October 13 point surge while prices paid rose to a record high. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051115e.jpg" width="353">
Like the Philadelphia Fed Index of General Business Conditions, the Empire State Business Conditions Index reflects answers to an independent survey question; it is not a weighted combination of the components.
The index of expectations for business conditions in six months recovered sharply. The 14 point jump pulled the index level to its highest since August and expectations for future capital spending jumped. A nine point rise brought the index to the highest level since March.
The Empire State Manufacturing Survey is a monthly survey of manufacturers in New York State conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Participants from across the state in a variety of industries respond to a questionnaire and report the change in a variety of indicators from the previous month. Respondents also state the likely direction of these same indicators six months ahead. April 2002 is the first report, although survey data date back to July 2001.
For more on the Empire State Manufacturing Survey, including methodologies and the latest report, click <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/regional_economy/empiresurvey_overview.html">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S5/@S511/@S511.HTM">Empire State Manufacturing Survey</a> </th>
<th scope="col">Nov</th>
<th scope="col">Oct</th>
<th scope="col">Nov &#39;04 </th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">General Business Conditions (diffusion index)</td>
<td>22.82</td>
<td>12.08</td>
<td>19.78</td>
<td>28.76</td>
<td>16.17</td>
<td>7.19</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
German Economic Growth Increases in the Third Quarter but ZEW Survey Raises Doubts About the Outlook 
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> November 15, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051115a.jpg" width="353">
Preliminary data released today show that Germany&#39;s Real Gross Domestic Product increased 0.6% in the third quarter, compared with revised increases of 0.6% in the first quarter and 0.2% in the second quarter. The unrevised increases for the first and second quarters were 0.8% and 0.0% respectively. For the three quarters of this year, real GDP is only 0.87% above the three corresponding quarters of 2004, suggesting that growth in 2005 is unlikely to exceed 1.0%. Nominal GDP increased 0.38% in the third quarter, less than the real increase, as the deflator declined 0.24%. This was one of the few times, in the past five years, when the deflator declined, as can be seen in the first chart which shows the quarter-to-quarter growth in Real and Nominal GDP. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051115b.jpg" width="353">
Information on the composition of GDP will not be available until November 22 when the more detailed release is scheduled to appear. However, the Federal Statistical Office offered some qualitative comments in the current release. A strong increase in exports and a considerable rise in capital formation had positive impacts on the quarter-to-quarter growth. Net exports were almost the only cause of year-to-year growth; domestic activity having made little contribution.
The ZEW Center for Economic Research released the results of its survey of institutional investors and financial analysts regarding the current economic situation and the outlook six months ahead. This was one of those rare times when the respondents were less pessimistic about the current situation than they were last month but less positive about the situation six months ahead as can be seem in the second chart. The decline in optimism about the future is generally attributed to doubts that the agreed upon economic program of the Grand Coalition scheduled to take office on November 22 may do little to encourage growth. 

<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/@D8/@D8.HTM">Germany</a></th>
<th scope="col">Q3 05&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 05</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 04</th>
<th scope="col">Q/Q&nbsp; %</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2004&nbsp;%&nbsp; </th>
<th scope="col">2003 %</th>
<th scope="col">2002 %</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">GDP (Bil. Euros)</td>
<td>561.05</td>
<td>558.90</td>
<td>557.16</td>
<td>0.38</td>
<td>1.61</td>
<td>1.88</td>
<td>0.84</td>
<td>1.55</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">GDP (Bil 2000 Chained Euros)&nbsp;</td>
<td>535.02</td>
<td>531.73</td>
<td>527.02</td>
<td>0.62</td>
<td>1.36</td>
<td>1.09</td>
<td>-.019</td>
<td>0.09</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Deflator (2000 =100)</td>
<td>104.84</td>
<td>105.09</td>
<td>104.59</td>
<td>-0.24</td>
<td>0.24</td>
<td>0.79</td>
<td>1.03</td>
<td>1.45</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">ZEW Survey ( Percent Balance)</td>
<td>Nov 05&nbsp;</td>
<td>Oct 05</td>
<td>Nov 04</td>
<td>M/M&nbsp; Dif</td>
<td>Y/Y Dif</td>
<td>2004&nbsp; </td>
<td>2003&nbsp;</td>
<td>2002&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Current Situation</td>
<td>-55.2</td>
<td>-58.0</td>
<td>-57.8</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>-67.7</td>
<td>92.6</td>
<td>83.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Situation 6 Months Ahead</td>
<td>38.7</td>
<td>39.4</td>
<td>13.9&nbsp;</td>
<td>-0.7&nbsp;</td>
<td>24.8&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp; 44.6&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;38.4</td>
<td>&nbsp;45.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Louise Curley

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051114b.jpg" width="353">
Preliminary data on Japan&#39;s Gross Domestic Product was released late last week. Total GDP rose at an annual rate of 1.7% in the third quarter, above the consensus estimate of 1.1%. Although the growth had slowed from 3.25% of the second quarter and the 6.29% of the first quarter, the report was well received by financial analysts and the stock market. The Nikkei 225 Average rose 0.5% or 74 points to 14,155.06 on last Friday, its highest close since May 2001.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051114c.jpg" width="353">
On Monday, the stock market gave back more than half of Friday&#39;s gains. While the Monday decline has been attributed to a falling off of demand for Japanese stocks by foreign investors, some of the decline may have been the result of different views on deflation expressed by the Governor of the Bank of Japan and the Prime Minister following the release of the GDP data. Toshihiko Fukui, governor of the Bank of Japan, hinted at a possible change in monetary policy. &quot;A shift in policy, conceptually, would be a cut in current account deposits (the liquidity target) followed by very low short-term interest rates and then an adjustment to rates to a level in line with economic conditions.&quot; Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi warned the Bank that it was too early to change its easy monetary policy of fighting deflation. In the first chart the gap between real and nominal GDP, a measure of deflation, has yet to show meaningful signs of decline.
The deceleration in growth was due in part to a decline in net exports as imports, fueled by high oil prices, rose faster than exports. However, both private consumption and gross fixed investment also played a part in the deceleration of growth. The second chart shows the seasonally adjusted annual rate of change in private final consumption and in gross fixed investment. The one sector that showed higher growth was inventories as both public and private inventories rose. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/JAPAN/@J2/@J2.HTM">Japan:&nbsp;</a> Gross Domestic Product</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 2005 &nbsp;%</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 2005 %</th>
<th scope="col">Q1 2005 %</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 2004 %</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">GDP Current Yen</td>
<td>0.69</td>
<td>2.05</td>
<td>3.15</td>
<td>0.89</td>
<td>1.40</td>
<td>-0.05</td>
<td>-1.56</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">GDP 2000 Chn Yen</td>
<td>1.70</td>
<td>3.25</td>
<td>6.29</td>
<td>0.72</td>
<td>2.61</td>
<td>1.41</td>
<td>-0.29</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Private Final Consumption&nbsp;</td>
<td>1.36</td>
<td>2.67</td>
<td>5.04</td>
<td>-1.09</td>
<td>1.47</td>
<td>0.24</td>
<td>0.53</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Gross Domestic Fixed Investment</td>
<td>3.66</td>
<td>6.42</td>
<td>7.10</td>
<td>0.62</td>
<td>1.34</td>
<td>1.05</td>
<td>-5.67</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Exports of Goods &amp; Services</td>
<td>11.43</td>
<td>13.03</td>
<td>-0.05</td>
<td>6.62</td>
<td>14.47</td>
<td>9.09</td>
<td>4.15</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Imports of Goods &amp; Services</td>
<td>16.66</td>
<td>9.40</td>
<td>0.30</td>
<td>10.33</td>
<td>8.92</td>
<td>3.82</td>
<td>1.25</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td>Q3 05 Bil. 2000.Chn Yen</td>
<td>Q2 05 Bil. 2000.Chn Yen</td>
<td>Q1 05 Bil.2000.Chn Yen</td>
<td>Q4 04 Bil. 2000.Chn Yen</td>
<td>2004 Bil. 2000.Chn Yen</td>
<td>2003 Bil. 2000.Chn Yen&nbsp;</td>
<td>2002 Bil. 2000.Chn Yen</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Private Inventory Change</td>
<td>2261.1</td>
<td>2046.3</td>
<td>2848.9</td>
<td>1128.9</td>
<td>839.6</td>
<td>-108.5</td>
<td>-983.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Public Inventory Change</td>
<td>&nbsp;163.5</td>
<td>124.0&nbsp;</td>
<td>141.5&nbsp;</td>
<td>167.6&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;41.4</td>
<td>2.5&nbsp;</td>
<td>-6.6&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Preliminary data on Japan's Gross Domestic Product was released late last week. Total GDP rose at an annual rate of 1.7% in the third quarter, above the consensus estimate of 1.1%. Although the growth had slowed from 3.25% of the [...]

Japanese Gross Domestic Product Slows, but Exceeds Consensus Estimates

<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/051114a.jpg" width="353">
The U.S. federal government budget deficit continued lower during the opening month of FY06. The deficit of $47.2B fell 17.6% versus last October, about the same rate of decline as during FY05.
As a percentage of GDP the deficit fell to 2.6% last fiscal year versus 3.6% in FY04. The latest projection from the Congressional Budget Office is for a further decline to 2.4% in FY06.
Net receipt continued firm 9.2% y/y rate last month, powered by 16.0% growth in individual income tax receipts (44% of total receipts). That growth made up for an October shortfall in corporate income taxes (10% of total receipts) which left them 20.5% last October.
Total receipts accounted for 17.5% of GDP last fiscal year, up from 16.3% the prior year but down from 18.4% during the 1990s.
The improved job market continued to lift employment taxes (36% of total receipts) 6.4% y/y, a slowdown versus 8.8% growth during all of FY 2005 which was the strongest increase since 1988. 
U.S. net outlays grew 1.3% y/y last month despite a 28.0% gain in defense (19% of total outlays). Medicare spending (12% of total outlays) fell 11.4% y/y but spending on social security (21% of total outlays) rose 5.7%. Spending on health programs (10% of the total) rose 3.5% while spending on education &amp; training (4% of the total) fell 5.0% y/y after double digit gains during three of the last four fiscal years. Interest expense (8% of the total) grew 13.0% with higher interest rates after a 14.9% gain last fiscal year.
The latest projections from the US Congressional Budget Office are available <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&amp;sequence=0"> here</a>. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E1/@E106/@E10602/@E10602.HTM">US Government Finance</a></th>
<th scope="col">Oct</th>
<th scope="col">Sept</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">FY 2005</th>
<th scope="col">FY 2004</th>
<th scope="col">FY 2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Budget Balance</td>
<td>$-47.2B</td>
<td>$35.7B</td>
<td>$-57.3B (10/04)</td>
<td>$-318.6B</td>
<td>$-412.1B</td>
<td>$-377.6B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Net Revenues</td>
<td>$149.5B</td>
<td>$151.6B</td>
<td>9.2%</td>
<td>14.6%</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Net Outlays</td>
<td>$196.7B</td>
<td>$216.0B</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The U.S. federal government budget deficit continued lower during the opening month of FY06. The deficit of $47.2B fell 17.6% versus last October, about the same rate of decline as during FY05. As a percentage of GDP the deficit fell [...]

October U.S. Budget Deficit Down Y/Y

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051114a.jpg" width="353">
The U.S. federal government budget deficit continued lower during the opening month of FY06. The deficit of $47.2B fell 17.6% versus last October, about the same rate of decline as during FY05.
As a percentage of GDP the deficit fell to 2.6% last fiscal year versus 3.6% in FY04. The latest projection from the Congressional Budget Office is for a further decline to 2.4% in FY06.
Net receipt continued firm 9.2% y/y rate last month, powered by 16.0% growth in individual income tax receipts (44% of total receipts). That growth made up for an October shortfall in corporate income taxes (10% of total receipts) which left them 20.5% last October.
Total receipts accounted for 17.5% of GDP last fiscal year, up from 16.3% the prior year but down from 18.4% during the 1990s.
The improved job market continued to lift employment taxes (36% of total receipts) 6.4% y/y, a slowdown versus 8.8% growth during all of FY 2005 which was the strongest increase since 1988. 
U.S. net outlays grew 1.3% y/y last month despite a 28.0% gain in defense (19% of total outlays). Medicare spending (12% of total outlays) fell 11.4% y/y but spending on social security (21% of total outlays) rose 5.7%. Spending on health programs (10% of the total) rose 3.5% while spending on education &amp; training (4% of the total) fell 5.0% y/y after double digit gains during three of the last four fiscal years. Interest expense (8% of the total) grew 13.0% with higher interest rates after a 14.9% gain last fiscal year.
The latest projections from the US Congressional Budget Office are available <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&amp;sequence=0"> here</a>. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E1/@E106/@E10602/@E10602.HTM">US Government Finance</a></th>
<th scope="col">Oct</th>
<th scope="col">Sept</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">FY 2005</th>
<th scope="col">FY 2004</th>
<th scope="col">FY 2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Budget Balance</td>
<td>$-47.2B</td>
<td>$35.7B</td>
<td>$-57.3B (10/04)</td>
<td>$-318.6B</td>
<td>$-412.1B</td>
<td>$-377.6B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Net Revenues</td>
<td>$149.5B</td>
<td>$151.6B</td>
<td>9.2%</td>
<td>14.6%</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Net Outlays</td>
<td>$196.7B</td>
<td>$216.0B</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Japanese Gross Domestic Product Slows, but Exceeds Consensus Estimates 
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> November 14, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051114b.jpg" width="353">
Preliminary data on Japan&#39;s Gross Domestic Product was released late last week. Total GDP rose at an annual rate of 1.7% in the third quarter, above the consensus estimate of 1.1%. Although the growth had slowed from 3.25% of the second quarter and the 6.29% of the first quarter, the report was well received by financial analysts and the stock market. The Nikkei 225 Average rose 0.5% or 74 points to 14,155.06 on last Friday, its highest close since May 2001.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051114c.jpg" width="353">
On Monday, the stock market gave back more than half of Friday&#39;s gains. While the Monday decline has been attributed to a falling off of demand for Japanese stocks by foreign investors, some of the decline may have been the result of different views on deflation expressed by the Governor of the Bank of Japan and the Prime Minister following the release of the GDP data. Toshihiko Fukui, governor of the Bank of Japan, hinted at a possible change in monetary policy. &quot;A shift in policy, conceptually, would be a cut in current account deposits (the liquidity target) followed by very low short-term interest rates and then an adjustment to rates to a level in line with economic conditions.&quot; Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi warned the Bank that it was too early to change its easy monetary policy of fighting deflation. In the first chart the gap between real and nominal GDP, a measure of deflation, has yet to show meaningful signs of decline.
The deceleration in growth was due in part to a decline in net exports as imports, fueled by high oil prices, rose faster than exports. However, both private consumption and gross fixed investment also played a part in the deceleration of growth. The second chart shows the seasonally adjusted annual rate of change in private final consumption and in gross fixed investment. The one sector that showed higher growth was inventories as both public and private inventories rose. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/JAPAN/@J2/@J2.HTM">Japan:&nbsp;</a> Gross Domestic Product</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 2005 &nbsp;%</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 2005 %</th>
<th scope="col">Q1 2005 %</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 2004 %</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">GDP Current Yen</td>
<td>0.69</td>
<td>2.05</td>
<td>3.15</td>
<td>0.89</td>
<td>1.40</td>
<td>-0.05</td>
<td>-1.56</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">GDP 2000 Chn Yen</td>
<td>1.70</td>
<td>3.25</td>
<td>6.29</td>
<td>0.72</td>
<td>2.61</td>
<td>1.41</td>
<td>-0.29</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Private Final Consumption&nbsp;</td>
<td>1.36</td>
<td>2.67</td>
<td>5.04</td>
<td>-1.09</td>
<td>1.47</td>
<td>0.24</td>
<td>0.53</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Gross Domestic Fixed Investment</td>
<td>3.66</td>
<td>6.42</td>
<td>7.10</td>
<td>0.62</td>
<td>1.34</td>
<td>1.05</td>
<td>-5.67</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Exports of Goods &amp; Services</td>
<td>11.43</td>
<td>13.03</td>
<td>-0.05</td>
<td>6.62</td>
<td>14.47</td>
<td>9.09</td>
<td>4.15</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Imports of Goods &amp; Services</td>
<td>16.66</td>
<td>9.40</td>
<td>0.30</td>
<td>10.33</td>
<td>8.92</td>
<td>3.82</td>
<td>1.25</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td>Q3 05 Bil. 2000.Chn Yen</td>
<td>Q2 05 Bil. 2000.Chn Yen</td>
<td>Q1 05 Bil.2000.Chn Yen</td>
<td>Q4 04 Bil. 2000.Chn Yen</td>
<td>2004 Bil. 2000.Chn Yen</td>
<td>2003 Bil. 2000.Chn Yen&nbsp;</td>
<td>2002 Bil. 2000.Chn Yen</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Private Inventory Change</td>
<td>2261.1</td>
<td>2046.3</td>
<td>2848.9</td>
<td>1128.9</td>
<td>839.6</td>
<td>-108.5</td>
<td>-983.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Public Inventory Change</td>
<td>&nbsp;163.5</td>
<td>124.0&nbsp;</td>
<td>141.5&nbsp;</td>
<td>167.6&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;41.4</td>
<td>2.5&nbsp;</td>
<td>-6.6&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</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/051111a.jpg" width="353">
The modest 0.2% increase in the September Leading Index of the Major 7 OECD economies marked the fourth consecutive gain and it improved the leaders&#39; six month growth rate to 1.1%, the best in twelve months.The increase reflected improvement in Japan &amp; Europe but declines in North America.
During the last ten years there has been a 68% correlation between the change in the leading index and the q/q change in the GDP Volume Index for the Big Seven countries in the OECD.
The leading index for Japan jumped 1.0%, the most for any month since early 2002, as share prices increased and the interest rate yield spread widened. The six month growth rate surged to 2.3%, the best since early 2004, and its correlation with real growth in Japan has been a meaningful 42% during the last ten years.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051111b.jpg" width="353">
Leaders in the European Union (15 countries) rose for the fourth month and the 0.5% increase lifted the six month growth rate to 2.3%, the highest in a year. During the last ten years there has been a 60% correlation between the change in the leading index and the q/q change in the GDP volume index for the European Union.
German leaders increased for the fifth consecutive month. A 0.5% gain raised six month growth to 3.3% as new orders bounced back from an August drop and the business climate improved. The correlation between the leaders and the change in the German GDP volume index has been a low 19% during the last ten years.
The French leaders rose for the third consecutive month. The 0.5% increase pulled the six month growth rate into positive territory for the first time since March with a 0.3% growth rate and the correlation between the leaders with growth in France&#39;s GDP volume index has been a higher 43% during the last ten years. The Italian leading index showed perhaps the most meaningful monthly improvement with a 0.8% gain that followed an upwardly revised 0.9% August increase. The six month growth rate improved to 1.9%, the best since early 2004, although its correlation with GDP growth has been a low 0.9% during the last ten years.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051111c.jpg" width="353">
The UK leaders increased just 0.1% but it was the fourth rise in as many months. The gain raised the six month growth rate to 0.2% and its correlation with real GDP growth has been 29% during the last ten years.
The U.S. leaders fell for the second consecutive month and the 0.3% decline lowered the six month growth rate to 0.3%, the worst since May. The correlation between the leaders and real GDP growth has been a high 58% during the last ten years. The Canadian leaders also fell and the 0.5% decline dropped six month growth to -1.0%. The leaders&#39; growth also has been highly correlated with Canadian real GDP growth, to the tune of 49% during the last ten years.
The latest OECD Leading Indicator report is available <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/31/35645542.pdf">here</a>.
What Caused The Great Moderation? Some Cross-Country Evidence from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City is available <a href="http://www.kansascityfed.org/PUBLICAT/ECONREV/PDF/3q05summ.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/OECDMEI/OECDMEI.HTM">OECD</a></th>
<th scope="col">Sept</th>
<th scope="col">Aug</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>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Leading Index&nbsp;</td>
<td>102.51</td>
<td>102.31</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>102.03</td>
<td>97.59</td>
<td>96.30</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;6 Month Growth Rate</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The modest 0.2% increase in the September Leading Index of the Major 7 OECD economies marked the fourth consecutive gain and it improved the leaders' six month growth rate to 1.1%, the best in twelve months.The increase reflected [...]

OECD Leaders Up Again

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/051110b.jpg" width="353">
Several countries reported CPI data today for October.A common feature of all the countries we examined was a tempering of inflation as energy prices backed off their storm-related highs of September.
In France and Denmark, the October CPI actually declined 0.1% in the month, following 0.4% increases in both countries in September.For France, tellingly, the subset of the CPI excluding energy was flat in both months.
Ireland&#39;s total CPI rose 0.2% in October after 0.8% in September.It is seen to experience somewhat higher inflation trends overall than the others of these countries.Finally, in Norway, the total CPI was flat following September&#39;s 0.3% rise. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051110c.jpg" width="353">
Clearly, one month need not mark a turning point in inflation trends. But this is welcome relief however long it lasts.We have noted all along how relatively immune other prices have been to the energy situation.This agreeable circumstance may yet change, given the squeeze on business operating margins that has already taken place from the surge in energy.Demand responses could well limit the ultimate pass-through, though, as sluggish economies in Europe also have little capacity to shoulder further price burdens.
<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;MS Mincho&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:
JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">As a footnote, the individual months&#39; figures we quote here are seasonally adjusted data found in Haver&#39;s G10 database.This database is a summary compilation of major data in major countries, the well-known G10, plus Australia, Austria, other Nordic nations, Ireland, Spain and so on.In that database Haver performs some additional seasonal adjustment of data beyond that provided by many countries.The more comprehensive databases covering individual countries consist largely in data provided by the countries&#39; official statistics sources, which we do not augment, while G10 is a database we compile ourselves for the convenience of having a quick summary of large countries, but with a modest amount of detail.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/G10/@GZ/@GZ5/@GZ501/@GZ501.HTM">CPI, % Changes, SA*</a></th>
<th scope="col">Oct 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Sept 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Aug 2005&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Oct 2004**&nbsp;</th>
December/December
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
<td>2002</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>2.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Ex Energy</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td>2.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Ireland</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>5.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Denmark</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>2.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Norway</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>2.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Several countries reported CPI data today for October.A common feature of all the countries we examined was a tempering of inflation as energy prices backed off their storm-related highs of September. In France and Denmark, the [...]

CPI Data Show Some Relief for Energy in October

Crude oil price has returned to pre-conflict level but traffic through Hormuz still subpar

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

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

Sandy Batten

260702A4.jpg

260702B4.jpg

The luster fell a bit off the employment rose in June with nonfarm payrolls rising 57,000 against expectations of a 115,000 increase, according to today’s report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Moreover, the increases previously reported for April and May were revised down by a total of 74,000. Upon revision, payrolls increased 148,000 in April versus 179,000 previously reported and rose 129,000 in May versus 172,000 previously reported. The average increase over the past three months fell to 111,000 from 164,000 in May while the average increase over the past six months rose to 92,000 in June, its highest reading since February 2025, from 80,000 in May. Both remain on a modest uptrend and much stronger than payroll gains last year. In 2025, monthly payroll gains averaged only 10,000.

The weaker-than-expected payroll report was reinforced by a weak report from the **household survey**. While the number of unemployed fell 213,000 and the unemployment rate edged down to 4.2% from 4.3% in May, the number of employed slumped 507,000 in June, the largest monthly decline since May 2025 (with population adjustment to January 2026). The labor force plunged 720,000 with the labor force participation rate falling to 61.5%, its lowest level since March 2021.

Growth of average hourly earnings (AHE), a key variable for the Federal Reserve, was relatively well behaved in June. AHE increased 0.3% m/m, the same monthly gain as in May, in line with expectations. The y/y rate of advance edged up to 3.5% in June from 3.4% in May. Wage growth in private services-producing firms picked up in June, rising 0.4% m/m (3.4% y/y) versus 0.2% m/m (3.2% y/y) in May. Goods-producing wages increased 0.2% m/m in June after 0.3% monthly gains in both April and May with the y/y rate holding at 4.1%.

260702C4.jpg

260702D4.jpg

In the **establishment survey**, private-sector employment was also weaker than expected in June, increasing only 49,000 against an expected 115,000 increase. Moreover, April and May figures were also revised down by a total of 50,000. Government employment rose 8,000 following a 32,000 increase in May. Private goods-producing employment increased 10,000, its largest monthly gain in three months with an 11,000 gain in construction and a 3,000 rise in manufacturing jobs, the first increase in three months. In contrast, services-producing employment increased only 39,000 in June, its weakest monthly performance in four months. Private education and health services jobs posted another solid gain of 69,000, up from 45,000 in May. However, retail jobs fell 7,500, their first monthly decline in four months, and leisure and hospitality jobs slumped 61,000, their largest monthly decline since December 2020, after increasing 40,000 in May. There had been speculation in the market that the World Cup would generate additional leisure and hospitality jobs, but this obviously failed to pan out. On a brighter note, although the one-month payroll diffusion index, a measure of the breadth of job gains, slipped to 54.4 in June from 56.0 in May, it remained well above the key 50 level that indicates that more industries were adding jobs than losing them.

The length of the workweek was unchanged at 34.3 hours in June with the aggregate weekly hours index edging up 0.1% m/m, the same monthly gain as in May. The aggregate hours index rose 1.3% q/q saar in Q2, the fastest quarterly gain in four quarters, providing a solid base for Q2 real GDP growth. The goods-producing workweek was unchanged at 40.1 hours, the highest since January 2023, while the private service-producing workweek edged down to 33.2 hours from 33.3 hours in May.

The employment and earnings data are collected from surveys taken each month during the week containing the 12th day of the month. The labor market data are contained in Haver's **USECON** database. Detailed figures are in the **EMPL** and **LABOR** databases. The expectations figures are in the **AS1REPNA** database.

260702X4.jpg

260702F4.jpg

- U.S. nonfarm payrolls increased 57,000 in June with meaningful downward revisions to both April and May.
- The market consensus looked for a 115,000 increase.
- The unemployment rate edged down to 4.2% from 4.3%, due mostly to a large decrease in the labor force.
- Average hourly earnings rose 0.3% m/m (3.5% y/y), in line with expectations.

U.S. Payroll Employment Gains Smaller than Expected in June

Robert Brusca

260702E.jpg

Unemployment rates in the European Monetary Union (EMU) were steady in May at 6.2%, the same level as in April, after April had fallen to 6.2% from 6.3%. The 6.2% reading is the lowest for the community since it was formed. Meanwhile, for the larger community, the EU, the unemployment rate has stabilized at 5.9%, the same as in April, again, a tick lower than it was in March. This 5.9% reading is a tick above the historic low for the European Union (EU). In both cases, the performance of these two economic conglomerations is quite excellent.

**Monthly**
The table looks at 12 of the most senior members of the monetary union, including an observation for the United Kingdom based on its claimant-count unemployment rate, presented at the bottom of the table. In May, the monetary union saw 4 of 12 members in the table with lower unemployment rates than they had in April. In April, five members had lower unemployment rates than in March. In March, seven members had lower unemployment rates than they posted in February. The progression to lower unemployment rates has slowed based on monthly data.

**Sequentially**
Looking at changes in the unemployment rates over broader sequential periods—three months, six months, and 12 months—6 out of 12 reporters have lower unemployment rates over three months; 7 have lower unemployment rates over six months; only 4 report unemployment rates that are lower over 12 months. The broader periods for comparison show changes in the unemployment rates that report more declines over the shorter and more recent periods compared to the longer/older periods. This is not the same trend leaning that we get from the last three months of data. It'll be good to watch these developments in the coming months to see if the tendency to lower unemployment rates is slowing or whether dropping unemployment is continuing in force.

**Rankings**
The ranking of unemployment rates since 1990 finds only three of these 12 monetary union members with unemployment rates above their medians. Those are Luxembourg, with a 98.2 percentile standing, Finland with an 81.9 percentile standing, and Austria with a 76.6 percentile standing. Italy, on the other hand, is reporting the lowest unemployment rate that it has seen during this period. The Greek unemployment rate has been this low or lower only about 3% of the time, while in Spain the unemployment rate has been this low or lower 11% of the time. For Portugal, the unemployment ranking figure has been weaker 13% of the time. The monetary union continues to report excellent labor market results even though economic growth has been relatively disappointing.

260702.jpg

**Summing up and central bankers**
In the wake of the monetary conference in the Sintra this past week, central banks featuring contributions from the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, and the Bank of Canada, saw central bank heads talking about getting back to basics and stopping the use of some of the newer tools that had been pressed into service after the great financial crisis and during COVID. Bankers are getting back to basics to focus on short-term interest rates and say they will stop fiddling with the size of the balance sheet and to largely set aside the use of forward guidance. It will take time to determine what these changes are going to mean in terms of how policy performs and how markets will react. While there was a lot of discussion, and in some places concerns about the loss of forward guidance, what is clear is that, with forward guidance gone, there will be more volatility; however, the markets will be freer to price economic events themselves and will not be so stuck to the outlook of the central bank.  That could turn out to be a gigantic win for both markets and central bankers.

Europe

Unemployment Remains Quite Low in Europe

Andrew Cates

**Tightening Bias Intact, but Unevenly Distributed**
The July Blue Chip Financial Forecasts survey's expectations for policy rate changes over the next twelve months reveal a striking divergence across the major advanced economies, as chart 1 below makes clear. Across the board, the rate outlook is higher than it was in late February, before the US-Iran conflict escalated: the energy price shock and its inflationary consequences have left an imprint on the panel's thinking, even as oil prices have since retreated. Japan tops the list with an expected increase of around 40 basis points, reflecting the building pressure on the Bank of Japan to respond to yen weakness and still-elevated domestic inflation. Canada and the euro area also sit firmly in positive territory, with expected increases of around 30 and 20 basis points respectively. The US and the UK, by contrast, are in negative territory — the US barely so, the UK more distinctly, with the panel pencilling in modest rate reductions over the coming year. This pattern is not simply a reflection of where each economy sits in the inflation cycle. It also encodes a judgement about the current stance of monetary policy: in Japan, the euro area and Canada, policy is likely seen as insufficiently tight relative to the inflation challenge, and the conflict has reinforced that view. In the US and UK, by contrast, policy is judged to be closer to or already beyond neutral, meaning the next move is more likely to be an easing than a further tightening — even if, in the US case, that easing has been pushed well into 2027.

260702Z1.jpg

**When Will the Next Move Come?**
Chart 2 below adds a timing dimension to the rate outlook, showing where the BCFF panel currently places the next policy move for the Fed, ECB, Bank of England and Bank of Japan. For the BoJ, the distribution is concentrated around the near term, with a significant share of respondents expecting action in September or October — consistent with the building pressure illustrated in chart 1 and with the BoJ’s next scheduled decision on 31 July. For the ECB, September or later than November emerge as the most likely timing for the next step. The Bank of England panel is more spread, with a meaningful share expecting action to come later. For the Fed, the dominant view places the next move firmly in the ‘later’ category, consistent with the BCFF consensus that the Fed funds rate will hold through the rest of 2026, with a first cut not expected until Q2 2027. Under chair Kevin Warsh, the June FOMC meeting delivered a hawkish dot plot that shifted some participants toward a hike before year-end, but the panel as a whole has not moved that far.

260702Z2.jpg

**Headline Up, Core Contained: The Inflation Picture Across Advanced Economies**
One of the more reassuring features of the current inflation episode has been the limited pass-through from energy prices to underlying price dynamics. Across the advanced economies, headline CPI inflation has risen materially since the conflict escalated in March, driven overwhelmingly by consumer energy costs. Core inflation — stripping out food and energy — has edged higher, but only modestly, suggesting that second-round effects remain contained for now. In the United States, the pressures are arguably more alarming, with core PCE rising sharply between February and May to its highest level since October 2023. In the euro area, the focus this week has been firmly on Eurostat's June flash CPI estimate, published yesterday. Headline inflation fell back to 2.8% from a peak of 3.2% in May, as energy costs — the main driver of the surge since the conflict began — eased meaningfully. Crucially, core inflation also ticked down, and services inflation retreated as well. The June data therefore tell a broadly reassuring story: the energy shock is unwinding without leaving a lasting imprint on underlying price dynamics — precisely what the ECB will have been hoping for.

260702Z3.jpg

**Consumer Price Expectations: Are Households Convinced?**
The aggregate inflation picture looks relatively contained at the macro level, but whether households are similarly reassured is a separate question. Chart 4 below draws on the European Commission's consumer survey data on price expectations — one of the more timely and widely watched indicators of inflation psychology in the euro area. The survey captures whether consumers expect prices to rise, stay the same or fall over the coming twelve months, and its relationship with actual inflation outturns has historically been close. A sustained elevation in consumer price expectations risks becoming self-fulfilling, feeding into wage demands and pricing behaviour in ways that complicate the ECB's task considerably. The June survey, however, brought an encouraging development: expectations fell steeply, suggesting that households have begun to register the reversal in energy prices and the broader easing of the inflationary impulse. That said, the absolute level of expectations remains elevated relative to the pre-conflict period, and one month's decline does not constitute a trend. Whether the June reading marks the beginning of a sustained normalisation — or proves a temporary dip before expectations re-anchor at a higher level — will be one of the key variables shaping the ECB's decision calculus in the months ahead.

260702Z4.jpg

**Japan: A Weak Yen at the Worst Possible Time**
Japan occupies a particularly uncomfortable position in the current global conjuncture. The yen has depreciated to levels not seen since December 1986, with USD/JPY touching 162 this week. The move reflects the persistence of a large interest rate differential: even as the Bank of Japan has continued its gradual tightening, the Fed’s hawkish pivot under chair Kevin Warsh — with the mid-June FOMC dot plot signalling a possible hike before year-end — has reinforced the carry trade dynamics weighing on the currency. For Japan, which imports virtually all of its energy, yen weakness at a time of still-elevated global oil prices is a double burden, amplifying domestic inflation and squeezing real incomes. Verbal warnings from Japan’s Finance Ministry have had only a modest and short-lived effect on the exchange rate. The Bank of Japan’s next policy decision is on 31 July, and the pressure to act more decisively is building. The BCFF panel’s July survey revised upward its expectation for a stronger US dollar against the yen over the coming year — consistent with the fundamental picture that chart 5 below describes.

260702Z5.jpg

**AI: Optimism on the Technology, Scepticism on the Price**
Returning to the BCFF survey, its special questions reveal a panel that continues to look beyond the current cyclical turbulence toward a longer-horizon structural narrative. On artificial intelligence, respondents are broadly optimistic: 45% expect a noticeable impact on US productivity and growth within one to three years, with a further 45% believing those effects are already becoming evident. That is a striking degree of conviction about a technology whose macro-level productivity impact remains, by most empirical measures, still to fully materialise. Yet the same panellists are considerably more cautious about financial markets than about the technology itself. Nearly all respondents believe that expected AI gains are already fully reflected — or even over-reflected — in current asset prices. Chart 6 below captures this tension. It is a combination — high conviction on transformative potential, high scepticism on current valuations — that has historically been associated with stretched risk premia and vulnerability to disappointment, even where the underlying technology story ultimately proves correct.

260702Z6.jpg

Global financial markets have had a more settled feel this week, reflecting the continued unwinding of the geopolitical risk premium that had built up during the worst of the US-Iran conflict. Oil prices have fallen further, equity markets have been broadly supported, and incoming inflation data — notably the euro area’s June flash CPI estimate — have come in below expectations. The US holiday-shortened week ahead, with Independence Day on Friday, is likely to keep volumes thin and activity subdued. The bigger picture, however, remains one of tension between a more benign near-term inflation trajectory and central banks that may not yet be ready to stand down. In the charts below we look first at what the latest Blue Chip Financial Forecasts (BCFF) survey reveals about the expected change in and timing of policy rates across the major economies (charts 1 and 2), then at the divergence between headline and core inflation across the advanced economies (chart 3), and at what euro area consumers are more specifically expecting about inflation in the period ahead (chart 4). We turn next to Japan and the yen’s slide this week to 40-year lows (chart 5), and finally to the BCFF survey’s special questions on artificial intelligence and asset valuations (chart 6).

<iframe data-testid="embed-iframe" style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/6WAWvuhdCIiVMfa7lArFBI?utm_source=generator&si=a00a7c7e625c4035" width="100%" height="152" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" loading="lazy"></iframe>

Charts of the Week: Forecasters Hold Firm

Winnie Tapasanun

260701A23.jpg

260701B23.jpg

The ISM U.S. manufacturing PMI fell to a lower-than-expected 53.3 in June, the first m/m fall since February, following a 1.3-point increase to 54.0 in May, according to data from the Institute for Supply Management. The June reading, above the 50 expansion-contraction threshold, indicated the U.S. manufacturing sector expanded for the sixth straight month, albeit at a slightly slower pace. A reading of 53.8 for June had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The June manufacturing PMI, while above a contraction-level 49.0 in June 2025 and a low of 47.0 in October 2024, remained below a peak of 63.8 in March 2021.

The production index declined to 52.2 in June from 54.3 in May, indicating production expanded for the eighth consecutive month but at the slowest pace since December. The index was above a low of 44.8 in April 2025 but below a peak of 66.5 in March 2021. In June, 19.0% (NSA) of respondents reported higher production while 13.0% reported lower production. The new orders index slipped to 56.0 in June from 56.8 in May, signaling new orders grew for the sixth straight month following four successive months of contraction. The index remained well above a low of 41.8 in January 2023 but below a high of 67.0 in May 2021. In June, 22.3% (NSA) of respondents reported higher new orders while 13.4% reported declines. The inventories index climbed to 51.4 in June from 49.9 in May, marking the first expansion since April 2025. The index was slightly below a high of 52.7 in March 2025 but above a low of 43.8 in October 2024. Meanwhile, the supplier deliveries index fell to 57.4 in June from 60.6 in May and April, indicating slowing delivery performance for the seventh consecutive month after faster deliveries in November. In June, 18.1% (NSA) of respondents reported slower delivery speeds while 3.4% reported faster speeds.

On the labor front, the employment index improved to 49.7 in June from 48.6 in May, showing employment contracted for the 33rd straight month but at the slowest contraction pace since January 2025. The index was above a low of 44.1 in November 2025 but below a high of 56.5 in March 2022. In June, 16.2% (NSA) of respondents reported higher employment while 13.8% reported lower hiring.

On the pricing front, the prices paid index fell to a still-high 73.0 (NSA) in June, a 9.1-point drop—the largest decline since July 2022—from 82.1 in May, indicating raw materials prices rose for the 21st straight month but at the slowest rising pace since February. The index remained well above a low of 39.4 in December 2022 but below a high of 87.1 in March 2022 and a peak of 92.1 in June 2021. In June, 55.1% (NSA) of respondents reported higher prices while 9.2% reported price declines.

In other ISM series not included in the composite index, the new export orders index fell to 48.5 in June from 50.6 in May, indicating new export orders contracted for the third time in four months. The index was up from a low of 40.1 in May 2025 but down from a high of 52.4 in January 2025 and a peak of 57.1 in February 2022. The imports index edged down to 52.9 in June from 53.0 in May, suggesting imports expanded for the fifth successive month. The index was below its recent high of 54.9 in February but above a low of 39.9 in May 2025. The order backlog index decreased to 50.5 (NSA) in June from 52.2 in May, showing backlog levels grew at the slowest pace in six months. The index was below a high of 56.6 in February and a peak of 70.6 in May 2021 but well above a low of 37.5 in May 2023.

The ISM figures are based on responses from over 400 purchasing and supply executives from 18 industries, which are weighted according to each industry’s contribution to GDP. These data are diffusion indexes where a reading above 50 indicates expansion; below 50 indicates contraction. The ISM Manufacturing PMI is a composite index based on the diffusion indexes of five of the indexes (seasonally adjusted) with equal weights: New Orders, Production, Employment, Supplier Deliveries, and Inventories. The figures from the Institute for Supply Management can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database; further detail is found in the **SURVEYS** database. The expectations number is available in Haver’s **AS1REPNA** database.

260701C23.jpg

260701D23.jpg

- ISM Mfg. PMI down slightly to 53.3 in June; sixth straight month above 50.
- Production (52.2) expands for the eighth consecutive mth.; new orders (56.0) for the sixth successive mth.
- Employment (49.7) contracts for the 33rd straight mth.; at the slowest contraction pace since Jan. ’25.
- Prices Index (73.0) at a four-month low, still indicating prices rising for the 21st consecutive mth.
- Exports (48.5) contract for the third time in four mths.; imports (52.9) continue to grow.

U.S. ISM Manufacturing PMI Still Expansionary in June; New Orders and Production Growing at a Slower Pace; Employment Contracting

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.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

PPI Up Another 0.7%, Core Prices Fell

PPI Up Another 0.7%, Core Prices Fell

Japanese Gross Domestic Product Slows, but Exceeds Consensus Estimates

October U.S. Budget Deficit Down Y/Y

October U.S. Budget Deficit Down Y/Y

OECD Leaders Up Again

OECD Leaders Up Again

CPI Data Show Some Relief for Energy in October