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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051017f.jpg" width="353"></p>
<p>Among industrial countries the rise in inflation as measured by the year over year increase in the consumer price index has, to date, been relatively well contained in spite of the rise in energy costs. Inflation at the wholesale and producer levels where the impact of higher energy costs are more directly felt has, however, begun to accelerate. If past relationships hold, the pace of consumer price inflation should begin to step up.</p>
<p>Denmark and Finland , two countries reporting wholesale and producer price indexes today are illustrative of these trends. Most countries no longer distinguish between wholesale and producer price indexes, publishing only the producer price index, but these countries still publish both indexes. The composition of the indexes are not strictly comparable. In September, the Danish index of fuel and oil in the wholesale index rose 47.32% over September, 2004 the wholesale index was up 5.32%, the producer price index, 7.12% and the consumer price index, 2.39%. The first chart shows the year over year increases in the producer price and the consumer price indexes for Denmark. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051017e.jpg" width="353"></p>
<p>The September Finnish index of energy costs was 15.50% above the index of September, 2004. The wholesale price index was up 3.83%, the producer price index, 2.67% and the consumer price index, 1.14% The second chart shows the year over year increases in the producer price and consumer price indexes for Finland. <img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051017g.jpg" width="353"></p>
<p>Inflation in Finland has been lower than that in Denmark since late 2001. One factor accounting for the difference could be different monetary policies in the two countries. As a member of the Euro Zone, Finland has been subject to a somewhat tighter monetary policy than that in Denmark, which is outside the Euro Zone. The third chart shows the official base rates in the two countries as an indicator of monetary policy. Since late 2001, the base rate in Finland has been above that in Denmark.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b>&nbsp;Price Indexes (2000=100)</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Sep 05&nbsp;</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Aug 05</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Sep 04</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>M/M&nbsp; %</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y %</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2004 &nbsp;%</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2003 %</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2002 %</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Denmark</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Fuel and Oil Prices (PPI)</td>
<td>165.8</td>
<td>157.9</td>
<td>116.5</td>
<td>5.04</td>
<td>42.33</td>
<td>107.8</td>
<td>92.9</td>
<td>89.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Producer Price Index</td>
<td>111.3</td>
<td>110.5</td>
<td>103.9</td>
<td>0.72</td>
<td>7.12</td>
<td>103.0</td>
<td>100.8</td>
<td>101.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale Price Index</td>
<td>110.9</td>
<td>110.3</td>
<td>105.3</td>
<td>0.54</td>
<td>5.32</td>
<td>104.5</td>
<td>102.3</td>
<td>102.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer Price Index</td>
<td>111.2</td>
<td>110.3</td>
<td>108.6</td>
<td>0.82</td>
<td>2.39</td>
<td>108.3</td>
<td>107.0</td>
<td>104.8</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;Finland</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Energy Costs (WPI)</td>
<td>&nbsp;136.4</td>
<td>134.6&nbsp;</td>
<td>118.1</td>
<td>1.34</td>
<td>15.50</td>
<td>&nbsp;113.9</td>
<td>107.5&nbsp;</td>
<td>101.1&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Producer Price Index</td>
<td>96.1</td>
<td>65.6</td>
<td>63.6</td>
<td>0.52</td>
<td>2.67</td>
<td>93.1</td>
<td>92.8</td>
<td>94.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale Price Index</td>
<td>102.9</td>
<td>102.7</td>
<td>99.1</td>
<td>0.19</td>
<td>3.83&nbsp;</td>
<td>98.3&nbsp;</td>
<td>97.4&nbsp;</td>
<td>97.7&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer Price Index</td>
<td>&nbsp;106.9</td>
<td>106.3&nbsp;</td>
<td>105.7</td>
<td>.0.56</td>
<td>1.14&nbsp;</td>
<td>105.3&nbsp;</td>
<td>105.1&nbsp;</td>
<td>104.2&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>


Among industrial countries the rise in inflation as measured by the year over year increase in the consumer price index has, to date, been relatively well contained in spite of the rise in energy costs. Inflation at the wholesale and [...]

Rising Producer and Wholesale Price Indexes: A Prelude to Rising Consumer Price Indexes?

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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img align="left" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051017a.jpg"></p>
<p>The Empire State Index of General Business Conditions in New York&#39;s manufacturing industries for October fell unexpectedly to 12.08 from a downwardly revised 15.58 in September. Consensus expectations had been for improvement to 19.0.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Lower shipments and employment indexes figured largely in the October report, although the new orders index recovered more than half of the prior month&#39;s sharp decline. Prices paid rose to near the record high levels of late last year. <img align="right" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051017b.jpg"></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The index of expectations for business conditions in six months fell to the lowest level since 2001 and expectations for future capital spending fell slightly.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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>.</p>
</span>
<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"><b><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S5/@S511/@S511.HTM">Empire State Manufacturing Survey</a></b><b> </b></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>Oct</b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>Sept</b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><b><u>Oct &#39;04</u></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b><u>2004</u></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b><u>2003</u></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b><u>2002</u></b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">General Business Conditions (diffusion index)</td>
<td>12.08</td>
<td>15.58</td>
<td>23.75</td>
<td>28.76</td>
<td>16.17</td>
<td>7.19</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>


The Empire State Index of General Business Conditions in New York's manufacturing industries for October fell unexpectedly to 12.08 from a downwardly revised 15.58 in September. Consensus expectations had been for improvement to 19.0. [...]

October Empire State Index Fell Unexpectedly

<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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img align="left" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051017c.jpg"></p>
<p>The U.S. federal government ran a budget deficit of $318.6B during FY05, down nearly one quarter from the record deficit of $412.1B during the prior fiscal year.As a percentage of GDP, the deficit fell to 2.6% from 3.6% in FY04.</p>
<p>Net receipt growth of 14.6% during FY05 was capped by a 62.5% m/m spike in September. That gain was led by a 31.6% m/m rise in <i>individual income taxes </i>(44% of total receipts) which followed an 18.3% August increase. <b>For the fiscal year, the 14.6% rise in individual income taxes was the strongest since 1981</b>.</p>
<p><i>Corporate income taxes</i> (10% of total receipts) also reflected the improved economy and spiked higher in September. <b>The 47.0% y/y gain during FY05 was the strongest since 1952</b> and followed a 43.7% jump the prior year. <img align="right" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051017d.jpg"></p>
<p>The improved job market raised employment taxes (36% of total receipts) 8.8% y/y during all of FY 2005, the strongest increase since 1988.<br><br></p>
<p>U.S. net outlays grew 7.9% during FY05. Federal outlays on defense (19% of total outlays) continued to surge but the 8.3% gain during FY05 actually was down from 12.8% growth during FY04 and from 15.9% during FY 03. Medicare spending (12% of total outlays) surged during the last two months and lifted FY05 growth to 10.9%, the strongest since 1992. Spending on social security (21% of total outlays) fell in September and the decline limited the increase during FY 05 to a still high 5.6%. Spending on health programs (10% of the total) rose 4.3% during FY05 while spending on education &amp; training (4% of the total) surged 11.3%. interest expense (8% of the total) grew 14.9% with higher interest rates versus a modest rise last year and declines during the prior six fiscal years.<br><br><br></p>
<p><b>Do Budget Deficits Cause Inflation? </b>from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia can be found <a href="http://www.philadelphiafed.org/files/br/Q3_05_Sill.pdf"> here</a>.</p>
</span>
<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"><b>US Government Finance</b></a></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>Sept</b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>Aug</b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>FY 2005 </b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>FY2004</b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><b><u>FY2003</u></b></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>FY2002</b></u></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Budget Balance</td>
<td>$35.8B</td>
<td>$-51.6B</td>
<td>$-318.6B</td>
<td>$-412.1B</td>
<td>$-377.6B</td>
<td>$-157.8B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Net Revenues</td>
<td>$252.6B</td>
<td>$155.4B</td>
<td>14.6%</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
<td>-6.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Net Outlays</td>
<td>$216.8B</td>
<td>$207.0B</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>


The U.S. federal government ran a budget deficit of $318.6B during FY05, down nearly one quarter from the record deficit of $412.1B during the prior fiscal year.As a percentage of GDP, the deficit fell to 2.6% from 3.6% in FY04. Net [...]

FY 2005 U.S. Budget Deficit Fell Due To Higher Receipts

<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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img align="left" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051017c.jpg"></p>
<p>The U.S. federal government ran a budget deficit of $318.6B during FY05, down nearly one quarter from the record deficit of $412.1B during the prior fiscal year.As a percentage of GDP, the deficit fell to 2.6% from 3.6% in FY04.</p>
<p>Net receipt growth of 14.6% during FY05 was capped by a 62.5% m/m spike in September. That gain was led by a 31.6% m/m rise in <i>individual income taxes </i>(44% of total receipts) which followed an 18.3% August increase. <b>For the fiscal year, the 14.6% rise in individual income taxes was the strongest since 1981</b>.</p>
<p><i>Corporate income taxes</i> (10% of total receipts) also reflected the improved economy and spiked higher in September. <b>The 47.0% y/y gain during FY05 was the strongest since 1952</b> and followed a 43.7% jump the prior year. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051017d.jpg" width="353"></p>
<p>The improved job market raised employment taxes (36% of total receipts) 8.8% y/y during all of FY 2005, the strongest increase since 1988.<br><br></p>
<p>U.S. net outlays grew 7.9% during FY05. Federal outlays on defense (19% of total outlays) continued to surge but the 8.3% gain during FY05 actually was down from 12.8% growth during FY04 and from 15.9% during FY 03. Medicare spending (12% of total outlays) surged during the last two months and lifted FY05 growth to 10.9%, the strongest since 1992. Spending on social security (21% of total outlays) fell in September and the decline limited the increase during FY 05 to a still high 5.6%. Spending on health programs (10% of the total) rose 4.3% during FY05 while spending on education &amp; training (4% of the total) surged 11.3%. interest expense (8% of the total) grew 14.9% with higher interest rates versus a modest rise last year and declines during the prior six fiscal years.<br><br><br></p>
<p><b>Do Budget Deficits Cause Inflation? </b>from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia can be found <a href="http://www.philadelphiafed.org/files/br/Q3_05_Sill.pdf"> here</a>.</p>
</span>
<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"><b>US Government Finance</b></a></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>Sept</b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>Aug</b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>FY 2005 </b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>FY2004</b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><b><u>FY2003</u></b></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>FY2002</b></u></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Budget Balance</td>
<td>$35.8B</td>
<td>$-51.6B</td>
<td>$-318.6B</td>
<td>$-412.1B</td>
<td>$-377.6B</td>
<td>$-157.8B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Net Revenues</td>
<td>$252.6B</td>
<td>$155.4B</td>
<td>14.6%</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
<td>-6.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Net Outlays</td>
<td>$216.8B</td>
<td>$207.0B</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<span id="articletitle">October Empire State Index Fell Unexpectedly</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> October 17, 2005</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img align="left" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051017a.jpg"></p>
<p>The Empire State Index of General Business Conditions in New York&#39;s manufacturing industries for October fell unexpectedly to 12.08 from a downwardly revised 15.58 in September. Consensus expectations had been for improvement to 19.0.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Lower shipments and employment indexes figured largely in the October report, although the new orders index recovered more than half of the prior month&#39;s sharp decline. Prices paid rose to near the record high levels of late last year. <img align="right" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051017b.jpg"></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The index of expectations for business conditions in six months fell to the lowest level since 2001 and expectations for future capital spending fell slightly.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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>.</p>
</span>
<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"><b><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S5/@S511/@S511.HTM">Empire State Manufacturing Survey</a></b><b> </b></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>Oct</b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>Sept</b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><b><u>Oct &#39;04</u></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b><u>2004</u></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b><u>2003</u></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b><u>2002</u></b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">General Business Conditions (diffusion index)</td>
<td>12.08</td>
<td>15.58</td>
<td>23.75</td>
<td>28.76</td>
<td>16.17</td>
<td>7.19</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<span id="articletitle">Rising Producer and Wholesale Price Indexes:  A Prelude to Rising Consumer Price Indexes?</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> October 17, 2005</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051017f.jpg" width="353"></p>
<p>Among industrial countries the rise in inflation as measured by the year over year increase in the consumer price index has, to date, been relatively well contained in spite of the rise in energy costs. Inflation at the wholesale and producer levels where the impact of higher energy costs are more directly felt has, however, begun to accelerate. If past relationships hold, the pace of consumer price inflation should begin to step up. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051017e.jpg" width="353"></p>
<p>Denmark and Finland, two countries reporting wholesale and producer price indexes today are illustrative of these trends. Most countries no longer distinguish between wholesale and producer price indexes, publishing only the producer price index, but these countries still publish both indexes. The composition of the indexes are not strictly comparable. In September, the Danish index of fuel and oil in the wholesale index rose 47.32% over September, 2004 the wholesale index was up 5.32%, the producer price index, 7.12% and the consumer price index, 2.39%. The first chart shows the year over year increases in the producer price and the consumer price indexes for Denmark. <img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051017g.jpg" width="353"></p>
<p>The September Finnish index of energy costs was 15.50% above the index of September, 2004. The wholesale price index was up 3.83%, the producer price index, 2.67% and the consumer price index, 1.14% The second chart shows the year over year increases in the producer price and consumer price indexes for Finland.</p>
<p>Inflation in Finland has been lower than that in Denmark since late 2001. One factor accounting for the difference could be different monetary policies in the two countries. As a member of the Euro Zone, Finland has been subject to a somewhat tighter monetary policy than that in Denmark, which is outside the Euro Zone. The third chart shows the official base rates in the two countries as an indicator of monetary policy. Since late 2001, the base rate in Finland has been above that in Denmark.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b>&nbsp;Price Indexes (2000=100)</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Sep 05&nbsp;</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Aug 05</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Sep 04</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>M/M&nbsp; %</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y %</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2004 &nbsp;%</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2003 %</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2002 %</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Denmark</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Fuel and Oil Prices (PPI)</td>
<td>165.8</td>
<td>157.9</td>
<td>116.5</td>
<td>5.04</td>
<td>42.33</td>
<td>107.8</td>
<td>92.9</td>
<td>89.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Producer Price Index</td>
<td>111.3</td>
<td>110.5</td>
<td>103.9</td>
<td>0.72</td>
<td>7.12</td>
<td>103.0</td>
<td>100.8</td>
<td>101.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale Price Index</td>
<td>110.9</td>
<td>110.3</td>
<td>105.3</td>
<td>0.54</td>
<td>5.32</td>
<td>104.5</td>
<td>102.3</td>
<td>102.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer Price Index</td>
<td>111.2</td>
<td>110.3</td>
<td>108.6</td>
<td>0.82</td>
<td>2.39</td>
<td>108.3</td>
<td>107.0</td>
<td>104.8</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;Finland</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Energy Costs (WPI)</td>
<td>&nbsp;136.4</td>
<td>134.6&nbsp;</td>
<td>118.1</td>
<td>1.34</td>
<td>15.50</td>
<td>&nbsp;113.9</td>
<td>107.5&nbsp;</td>
<td>101.1&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Producer Price Index</td>
<td>96.1</td>
<td>65.6</td>
<td>63.6</td>
<td>0.52</td>
<td>2.67</td>
<td>93.1</td>
<td>92.8</td>
<td>94.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale Price Index</td>
<td>102.9</td>
<td>102.7</td>
<td>99.1</td>
<td>0.19</td>
<td>3.83&nbsp;</td>
<td>98.3&nbsp;</td>
<td>97.4&nbsp;</td>
<td>97.7&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer Price Index</td>
<td>&nbsp;106.9</td>
<td>106.3&nbsp;</td>
<td>105.7</td>
<td>.0.56</td>
<td>1.14&nbsp;</td>
<td>105.3&nbsp;</td>
<td>105.1&nbsp;</td>
<td>104.2&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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051014g.jpg" width="353"></p>
<p>Retail trade in Brazil decreased slightly in August, according to data reported this morning by Brazil&#39;s Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). The total value of sales, seasonally adjusted, eased 0.3% from July, and the volume of sales was down by 0.4%. However, press reports highlighted a stronger move in year-on-year growth. Sales volume, not seasonally adjusted, was up 6.5% from August 2004, the best such performance since March.</p>
<p>The strongest sectors included furniture and appliances and computers and peripherals. Supermarket and food store sales are expanding less than they did last year. Fuel outlets have also seen persistent declines in volume this year -- on a year-over-year basis -- but the August figure, at -6.0%, was the smallest of these decreases. Notably, a price deflator for the fuel category calculated from the value and volume indexes was slowing through August, suggesting that the reduced volume of fuel purchases was not a direct response to accelerating prices. This may have changed in September, however.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051014h.jpg" width="353"></p>
<p>The general price situation in Brazilian retail sales continues to look favorable. A broad deflator based on the ratio of total value to total volume of sales stood at only 109.3 in August, an annualized increase of 4.5% from the middle of 2003, the base period for these data. Moreover, this index has been virtually flat for four months, and if calculated from raw data before seasonal adjustment, it has been declining mildly in the latest months. This sluggish tendency is a far cry from the double- digit pace that prevailed as recently as 2003. Again, as with fuel prices themselves, this result may have deteriorated in September as world energy prices surged. Even so, the moderation of inflation can only help the underlying health of Brazil&#39;s consumers and overall economy.</p>
</span>
<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"><b><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/EMERGELA/@E2/@E2.HTM">Brazil:<br></a></b>&nbsp;Index, 2003=100</th>
<th scope="col"><b>Aug 2005*</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>July 2005*</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Aug 2004*</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2004</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2003</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2002</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"><b>Retail Sales Value</b></td>
<td>125.52</td>
<td>125.92</td>
<td>115.84</td>
<td>113.13</td>
<td>100.14</td>
<td>88.30</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><b>&nbsp; % Change</b></td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>13.0</td>
<td>13.4</td>
<td>7.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"><b>Retail Sales Volume</b></td>
<td>114.84</td>
<td>115.27</td>
<td>109.47</td>
<td>109.25</td>
<td>100.00</td>
<td>103.81</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><b>&nbsp; % Change</b></td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>9.2</td>
<td>-3.7</td>
<td>-0.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"><b>Implicit Price Index**</b></td>
<td>109.30</td>
<td>109.24</td>
<td>105.82</td>
<td>103.36</td>
<td>100.11</td>
<td>84.77</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><b>&nbsp; % Change</b></td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>18.1</td>
<td>7.9</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>


Retail trade in Brazil decreased slightly in August, according to data reported this morning by Brazil's Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). The total value of sales, seasonally adjusted, eased 0.3% from July, and the volume [...]

Brazil's Retail Sales Ease in August, But Show Good Gain from Year Ago

<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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051014f.jpg" width="353"></p>
<p>August total business inventories reversed the prior month&#39;s decline and rose 0.4%. The increase was double Consensus expectations, the first since May and the largest since March. Nevertheless, the ratio of inventories-to-sales remained at the record low of 1.26 due to a 0.4% (7.1% y/y) rise in business sales.</p>
<p>The 0.9% rise in retail inventories gained back half of the prior month&#39;s decline due to a 1.7% increase in motor vehicle inventories but excluding autos inventories jumped 0.6% (5.9% y/y). Furniture inventories fell 0.3% (+6.1% y/y) but general merchandise surged 1.3% (6.9% y/y).</p>
<p>Factory sector inventories fell slightly after a sharp 0.6% July gain.</p>
<p>Wholesale inventories increased 0.5%. During the last ten years there has been a 64% correlation between the y/y change in wholesale inventories and the change in imports of merchandise.</p>
<p><b>Economic Flexibility</b>, a speech by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, is available <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20051012/default.htm"> here</a>.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED06/@ED0601/@ED0601.HTM">Business Inventories</a></b></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>Aug</b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>July</b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>Y/Y</b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><b><u>2004</u></b></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>2003</b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><b><u>2002</u></b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Retail</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Retail excl. Autos</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>-5.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>


August total business inventories reversed the prior month's decline and rose 0.4%. The increase was double Consensus expectations, the first since May and the largest since March. Nevertheless, the ratio of inventories-to-sales [...]

U.S. Business Inventories Rebuilt

<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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051014e.jpg" width="353"></p>
<p>Industrial output last month fell 1.3% reflecting the effects of Hurricane&#39;s Katrina &amp; Rita and the decline by far outpaced Consensus expectations for a 0.4% drop. Utility output (-0.9%) and mining output (-9.1%) again reflected the worst damage. Factory sector production fell a lesser 0.6% (+2.9% y/y).</p>
<p>The Federal Reserve indicated that storm-related production declines may have reduced the change in total industrial production about 1.7 percentage points and by nearly 0.4 percentage points in August. Additionally, the strike in the aircraft industry reduced the change in total industrial output by almost 0.5 percentage points.</p>
<p>Output of computers, peripheral equipment &amp; semiconductors jumped 3.7% (24.6% y/y). Excluding the high tech sector factory output fell 0.9% (+1.6% y/y).</p>
<p>Output of appliances, furniture &amp; carpeting rose 0.3% (4.1% y/y) but business equipment output dropped a sharp 3.7% reflecting a 24.3% drop in transit equipment and a 3.4% decline in defense &amp; space.</p>
<p>Total capacity utilization fell sharply to 78.6% and capacity grew 1.1% y/y. Factory sector utilization fell to 77.9% while capacity rose 1.4% y/y.</p>
</span>
<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/USECON/@EA/@EA.HTM"><b>Production &amp; Capacity</b></a></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Sept</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Aug</b></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>Y/Y</b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><b><u>2004</u></b></th>
<th scope="col"><u><b>2003</b></u></th>
<th scope="col"><b><u>2002</u></b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Industrial Production</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer Goods</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business Equipment</td>
<td>-3.7%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>9.5%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>-7.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capacity Utilization</td>
<td>78.6%</td>
<td>79.8%</td>
<td>78.0% (9/04)</td>
<td>78.1%</td>
<td>75.5%</td>
<td>75.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>


Industrial output last month fell 1.3% reflecting the effects of Hurricane's Katrina & Rita and the decline by far outpaced Consensus expectations for a 0.4% drop. Utility output (-0.9%) and mining output (-9.1%) again reflected the [...]

Hurricanes Curtailed Industrial Output

<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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/051014d.jpg" width="353"></p>
<p>The preliminary October reading of consumer sentiment at 75.4 from the University of Michigan slipped 2.0% from September to the lowest level since 1992 and contrasted to Consensus expectations for improvement to 80.0.</p>
<p>During the last ten years there has been a 78% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the y/y change in real consumer spending.</p>
<p>The current conditions index fell 2.4% m/m (-8.0% y/y) as sentiment regarding buying conditions for large household goods fell 4.6% (-8.9% y/y) but the read of personal finances improved 1.0% m/m (-7.1% y/y).</p>
<p>Consumer expectations slipped 1.4% after two months of double digit decline. Expected personal finances fell 3.5% (-12.6% y/y) but expected business conditions during the next 12 months improved a slight 3.2% (-43.4% y/y).</p>
<p>The mean expected inflation rate for the next twelve months was about stable at 5.4% but still up from 3.4% during all of last year.</p>
<p>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.</p>
</span>
<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"><b>University of Michigan</b></a></th>
<th scope="col"><b>October (Prelim.)</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Sept</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2004</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2003</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2002</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>75.4</td>
<td>76.9</td>
<td>-17.8%</td>
<td>95.2</td>
<td>87.6</td>
<td>89.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>95.7</td>
<td>98.1</td>
<td>-8.0%</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>97.2</td>
<td>97.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Consumer Expectations</td>
<td>62.4</td>
<td>63.3</td>
<td>-25.5%</td>
<td>88.5</td>
<td>81.4</td>
<td>84.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>


The preliminary October reading of consumer sentiment at 75.4 from the University of Michigan slipped 2.0% from September to the lowest level since 1992 and contrasted to Consensus expectations for improvement to 80.0. During the last [...]

Depressed U.S. Consumer Sentiment Fell Further

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

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

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

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:

Rising Producer and Wholesale Price Indexes: A Prelude to Rising Consumer Price Indexes?

October Empire State Index Fell Unexpectedly

FY 2005 U.S. Budget Deficit Fell Due To Higher Receipts

FY 2005 U.S. Budget Deficit Fell Due To Higher Receipts

Brazil's Retail Sales Ease in August, But Show Good Gain from Year Ago

U.S. Business Inventories Rebuilt

Hurricanes Curtailed Industrial Output

Depressed U.S. Consumer Sentiment Fell Further