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/020404a.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose unexpectedly from the prior week&#39;s level that was revised up slightly. 
Some the increase was due to filings for extended unemployment insurance benefits. 
The four-week moving average of claims rose sharply to 403,750, the highest level since January. 
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance rose sharply in the latest week. The prior week&#39;s level was revised down. 
The insured rate of unemployment rose to 2.8%, the highest level since December.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">03/30/02</th>
<th scope="col">03/23/02</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>460.0</td>
<td>396.0</td>
<td>19.8%</td>
<td>408.0</td>
<td>302.8</td>
<td>297.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>3,608</td>
<td>44.7%</td>
<td>3,031</td>
<td>2,127</td>
<td>2,187</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose unexpectedly from the prior week's level that was revised up slightly. Some the increase was due to filings for extended unemployment insurance benefits. The four-week moving average of [...]

Initial Claims for Jobless Insurance Highest Since December

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020403a.jpg" width="353">
Light vehicle sales fell 1.4% last month versus February. The slight decline was expected.
Sales of domestically built cars and trucks fell 2.4% m/m and remained below last year&#39;s level. Imported vehicle sales rose 2.5% m/m and remained up versus 2001.
During the last three months, imports captured 20.4% of the US light vehicle market versus 17.8% last year, 16.3% in 2000 and 14.6% in 1999.
Sales of cars (-3.4% y/y) rose last month but sales of light trucks (-4.5% y/y) fell. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED09/@ED0901/@ED0901.HTM">Light Vehicle Sales (SAAR, Mil.Units)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>16.44</td>
<td>16.68</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td>17.21</td>
<td>17.40</td>
<td>16.95</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Domestic</td>
<td>13.08</td>
<td>13.39</td>
<td>-8.2%</td>
<td>14.15</td>
<td>14.58</td>
<td>14.47</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Imported</td>
<td>3.37</td>
<td>3.28</td>
<td>17.3%</td>
<td>3.06</td>
<td>2.82</td>
<td>2.48</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
ISM Nonmanufacturing Index Down Slightly 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 3, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020403b.jpg" width="353">
The Institute for Supply Management business activity index of the nonmanufacturing sector fell as expected last month. 
New orders fell but employment rose. The not seasonally adjusted price index rose for the third month in a row. 
Business activity for the nonmanufacturing sector is a question separate from the components mentioned above. In contrast, the NAPM manufacturing sector composite index weights the components. 
During the last four years, there has been a 44% correlation between the level of the NAPM nonmanufacturing index and quarterly growth in real GDP in the service sector.
ISM surveys more than 370 purchasing managers in more than 62 industries, including construction, law firms, hospitals, government and retailers. The nonmanufacturing survey dates only to July 1997, therefore its seasonal adjustment should be viewed tentatively.

<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/@EF03/@EF03.HTM">ISM Nonmanufacturing Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Business Activity Index</td>
<td>57.3</td>
<td>58.7</td>
<td>50.3</td>
<td>49.0</td>
<td>59.2</td>
<td>59.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Light vehicle sales fell 1.4% last month versus February. The slight decline was expected. Sales of domestically built cars and trucks fell 2.4% m/m and remained below last year's level. Imported vehicle sales rose 2.5% m/m and [...]

Vehicle Sales Down Slightly Versus February

<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/020402a.jpg" width="353">
The ISM Composite Index of manufacturing sector activity rose unexpectedly last month. Consensus expectations were for a slight decline to 54.5.The rise was in line with the moderate gain in the Chicago Purchasing agents&#39; index. 
New orders were quite strong rising to the highest level since 1987. The employment, supplier delivery and inventory components also rose but production fell. 
Inflation pressure rose sharply, the index moving above 50 for the first time since February 2001.
Over the last twenty years there has been a 75% correlation between the ISM Composite Index and 3-month growth in factory 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/@EF/@EF02/@EF02.HTM">ISM Manufacturing Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Index</td>
<td>55.6</td>
<td>54.7</td>
<td>43.2</td>
<td>43.9</td>
<td>51.6</td>
<td>54.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid Index</td>
<td>51.9</td>
<td>41.5</td>
<td>49.9</td>
<td>43.0</td>
<td>64.8</td>
<td>54.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Construction Spending Strong Again in February 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 1, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020402b.jpg" width="353">
The value of construction put in place rose slightly more than expected in February driven by sharply higher residential construction.
The January increase was revised lower due to lowered figures for nonresidential building, initially reported up, but residential building was revised higher. 
Residential building rose for the third month in a row, up 6.4% since June. 
In the nonresidential sector, sharp declines were registered across the board
Spending by governments fell for the first time since September, but public industrial and education construction were strong.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E907/@E90701/@E90701.HTM">Construction Put-in-place</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>8.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Residential</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>11.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonresidential</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>-17.4%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>8.0%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Public</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>16.7%</td>
<td>11.0%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>10.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Weekly Chain Store Sales Down 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 2, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020402d.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales fell sharply last week, by the same 0.6% as during the prior week.
March sales were down 0.4% from the February average. February sales rose 2.5% from January.
During the last ten years there has been a 20% correlation between the monthly percent change in chain store sales and the change in consumer confidence.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">BTM-UBSW (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">3/30/02</th>
<th scope="col">3/23/02</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Retail Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>402.5</td>
<td>405.1</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Factory Inventory Liquidation Continued 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 2, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020402c.jpg" width="353">
Manufacturing inventories fell more than expected in February. January&#39;s decline, which originally showed moderation versus prior months, was revised deeper.
Inventory decumulation continued strong across industries. A slight rise in heavy duty trucks as well as aircraft caused the increase in the transportation industry. 
Shipments fell 2.8% reversing all of the gains of the prior two months. 
Durable goods orders were revised up slightly versus the advance report, to a 1.8% gain.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED01/@ED0101/@ED01016/@ED01016.HTM">Inventories</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Mfg Inventories</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>-8.8%</td>
<td>-7.5%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The ISM Composite Index of manufacturing sector activity rose unexpectedly last month. Consensus expectations were for a slight decline to 54.5.The rise was in line with the moderate gain in the Chicago Purchasing agents' index. New [...]

ISM Index Slightly Higher

<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/020401b.jpg" width="353">
Personal income in February rose by the strongest amount for any one month since December 2000. The gain followed a strong rise January. Strength in both months was powered by huge gains in farm proprietors&#39; income. 
Wage and salary disbursements rose 0.4% (2.0% y/y) in February following a slight decline the month earlier. 
Personal spending was strong, powered by a rise in unit vehicle sales. Spending on nondurable goods and services rose moderately. 
Disposable income was strong, rising 0.7% 4.6% y/y) following a 1.8% gain January. 
The PCE price deflator was quite tame for the twelfth month in thirteen.

<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/@E7/@E711/@E71102/@E71102.HTM">Disposition of Personal Income</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Personal Income</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Personal Consumption</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Savings Rate</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">PCE Price Deflator</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Consumer Sentiment Strong 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 29, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020401a.jpg" width="353">
The March reading of Consumer Sentiment by the University of Michigan was slightly stronger than the mid-month reading and up 5.5% from the February level. 
The improved sentiment accompanied a 16.0% surge in consumer confidence reported earlier by the Conference Board, confirming that the consumer does indeed feel better about his well being.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.
During the past five years there has been a 39% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the 3-month % change in real PCE.

<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">Univ. of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>95.7</td>
<td>90.7</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>89.2</td>
<td>107.6</td>
<td>105.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Personal income in February rose by the strongest amount for any one month since December 2000. The gain followed a strong rise January. Strength in both months was powered by huge gains in farm proprietors' income. Wage and salary [...]

Personal Income and Spending Strong

<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/020328b.jpg" width="353">
GDP growth was revised slightly higher, mostly reflecting a revised estimate of trade sector deterioration.
The advance GDP estimate pegged growth at 0.2% (AR).
The rate of inventory decumulation was little changed. As a percentage of GDP it set a record. 
Domestic final demand growth was little revised, strong at 3.9% (AR). Real PCE rose 6.1% reflecting auto sales incentives. Residential investment fell along with fixed capital investment, down for the fifth consecutive quarter . 
The net export deficit deteriorated slightly less than reported earlier. Exports fell 10.9% and imports fell 7.5%. Both were down for the fifth consecutive quarter. 
Inflation was revised up slightly, but prices still fell for the first time since 1Q 1952.

<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/USECON/@E7/@E701/@E701.HTM">Chained &#39;96 $, % AR</a></th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;01 (Final)</th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;01 (Revised)</th>
<th scope="col">3Q &#39;01</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">GDP</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Inventory Effect</td>
<td>-2.2%</td>
<td>-2.2%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Final Sales</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Trade Effect</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Domestic Final Demand</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Chained GDP Price Deflator</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Initial Jobless Insurance Claims Surge 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 28, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020328a.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose unexpectedly from the prior week&#39;s level that was revised up slightly.
The four-week moving average of claims rose to 383,500, the highest level since late January.
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance rose sharply in the latest week but the prior week&#39;s level was revised down.
The insured rate of unemployment rose slightly to 2.7%, about where it&#39;s been all year.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">03/23/02</th>
<th scope="col">03/16/02</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>394.0</td>
<td>376.0</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
<td>408.0</td>
<td>302.8</td>
<td>297.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>3,526</td>
<td>40.1%</td>
<td>3,031</td>
<td>2,127</td>
<td>2,187</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Chicago Purchasing Agents' Index Rose 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 28, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020328c.jpg" width="353">
The Chicago Purchasing Manager&#146;s Index of Business activity rose more than expected in March, and was at its highest level since April 2000. 
Indexes of new orders, production, employment and inventories all rose. 
The prices paid index was unchanged but vendor delivery speeds slowed for the third straight month. 

<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/@EF05/@EF05.HTM">Chicago Purchasing Managers Index, SA</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Business Barometer</td>
<td>55.7</td>
<td>53.1</td>
<td>35.6</td>
<td>41.4</td>
<td>51.8</td>
<td>56.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid</td>
<td>51.2</td>
<td>51.2</td>
<td>58.6</td>
<td>50.5</td>
<td>65.6</td>
<td>57.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

GDP growth was revised slightly higher, mostly reflecting a revised estimate of trade sector deterioration. The advance GDP estimate pegged growth at 0.2% (AR). The rate of inventory decumulation was little changed. As a percentage of [...]

4Q GDP Revised Up Again

<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/020327a.jpg" width="353">
Sales of new single family homes rose slightly less than expected last month. A stronger rise to 890,000 units had been expected.
January sales were revised up slightly.
Sales were mixed across the country&#146;s regions; up in the South and West, down in the Northeast and Midwest. 
The median price of a new home fell 2.4% from January to $179,600, +6.2% y/y.
The new home sales data reflect current sales versus the existing home sales figure which reflects closings on past sales. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E904/@E90401/@E90401.HTM">Homes Sales (000s, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">New Single-Family</td>
<td>875</td>
<td>831</td>
<td>-8.8%</td>
<td>909</td>
<td>881</td>
<td>879</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Sales of new single family homes rose slightly less than expected last month. A stronger rise to 890,000 units had been expected. January sales were revised up slightly. Sales were mixed across the countrys regions; up in the South [...]

New Home Sales Up

<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" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020326a.jpg">
Durable goods orders rose slightly more than expected last month. January&#39;s huge increase was revised down sharply due to lowered estimates for nondefense capital goods.
Excluding transportation, durable orders fell 1.3% after rising between 0.2% and 0.6% in each of the prior three months.
Orders for aircraft and parts surged 41.0% but motor vehicle orders fell 5.9%.
Orders for computers &amp; related products fell 2.4% after rising an upwardly revised 3.3% the prior month. These orders have been firming since October.
Durable shipments fell 3.2% following a 1.8% January rise due to across the board component declines.
Durable inventories fell 0.5% and have fallen in each of the last thirteen months.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED01/@ED0101/@ED0101.HTM">NAICS Classification</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Durable Goods Orders</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>-5.7%</td>
<td>-12.9%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nondefense Capital Goods</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
<td>-15.7%</td>
<td>-17.2%</td>
<td>14.4%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Weekly Chain Store Sales Down 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 26, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020326b.jpg">
Chain store sales fell last week and fell during four of the last five weeks.
With one week remaining, March sales are down 0.2% from the February average. February sales rose 2.5% from January.
During the last ten years there has been a 20% correlation between the monthly percent change in chain store sales and the change in consumer confidence.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">BTM-UBSW (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">3/23/02</th>
<th scope="col">3/16/02</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Retail Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>405.1</td>
<td>407.5</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Consumer Confidence Surged 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 26, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020326c.jpg" width="353">
The Conference Board&#146;s Index of Consumer Confidence surged unexpectedly in March. February&#39;s level was revised up. 
The 16.0% m/m rise in the Conference Board measure far outpaced the mid-month reading from the University of Michigan that consumers&#39; attitudes also had improved. 
The rise in confidence reflected much higher readings for both consumer expectations and confidence regarding the present situation. 
The Conference Board&#39;s survey is conducted by a mailed questionnaire to 5,000 households and about 3,500 typically respond.

<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/@EF1401/@EF1401.HTM">Conference Board</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>110.2</td>
<td>95.0</td>
<td>-5.7%</td>
<td>106.6</td>
<td>139.0</td>
<td>135.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Durable goods orders rose slightly more than expected last month. January's huge increase was revised down sharply due to lowered estimates for nondefense capital goods. Excluding transportation, durable orders fell 1.3% after rising [...]

Durable Goods Orders Up, but Lack Strong Momentum

<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/020325a.jpg" width="353">
Sales of existing single family homes fell less than expected last month, down 2.8% from January&#39;s record sales pace which was revised up slightly.
Home sales were down in each of the country&#146;s four regions except the Northeast.
The median price of an existing home fell slightly to $150,000 (8.2% y/y). January figures were revised slightly lower.
The figures reflect closings of past sales. 
The average rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage fell to 6.89% last month from 7.00% in January. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E905/@E90501/@E90501.HTM">Existing Home Sales (000, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Existing Single-Family</td>
<td>&nbsp;5,880</td>
<td>&nbsp;6,050</td>
<td>11.6%</td>
<td>5,291</td>
<td>5,159</td>
<td>5,19</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Sales of existing single family homes fell less than expected last month, down 2.8% from January's record sales pace which was revised up slightly. Home sales were down in each of the countrys four regions except the Northeast. The [...]

Existing Home Sales Down But Level Strong

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

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

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

PMIs show still-elevated but slowing US inflation

AI boosting US investment in data centers

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

Consumers' short-term US inflation expectations still elevated while longer-term expectations of financial markets are steady

US financial markets have gotten used to elevated policy uncertainty

FOMC now expects more rate cuts going forward than in June

China gaining ASEAN exports while US exports slump

Job openings less than the number unemployed in July for first time since 2021

Reaccelerating goods price inflation along with sticky services inflation clouds the outlook

Falling oil prices aren't pulling down inflation expectations, pointing to a boost from increased tariffs

Equity market exuberance outpacing macroeconomic data

Apart from Japan, Blue Chip forecasters expect further sizable monetary easing

US production rebounded in Q2, but demand continued to slow

US leader, Germany trailer for real GDP growth over past 3 years

Negative US inflation surprises leading G10 down

Deflation continues in China

Incoming data surprising on downside in US; positive surprises elsewhere

FOMC expects more inflation and less growth than in March

Our global data offering is unparalleled in terms of coverage, quality, and organization. We offer 290+ databases from 2500 government and private sources, a wealth of key survey and forecast data covering the world’s economies, and a robust offering of archive databases that drive machine learning for big data applications.

Optimized for precision analytics, our data is seamlessly integrated with Microsoft Office and all leading statistical packages through our DLX® software and platform independent HaverView™ website. We further offer direct database feeds, client server or cloud-based delivery, and RESTful API.


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

Service Health

A premier time series data platform for the global strategy, research, and quant communities. 

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Featured Data Additions

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Winnie Tapasanun

251215J37.jpg

251215K37.jpg

The Empire State Manufacturing Index of General Business Conditions dropped more than expected to -3.9 in December, down from 18.7 in November and 10.7 in October, according to the Empire State Manufacturing Survey released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. A reading of 10.7 for December had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The December negative reading indicated that the business activity in New York State contracted for the first time since September; it was also down from 2.1 in December 2024 and a high of 20.2 in November 2024. The percentage of respondents reporting an increase in general business conditions was 31.8% in December, down from 38.7% in November; the percentage reporting a decrease was 35.7%, up from November’s 20.0%. The latest survey was conducted between December 2 and December 9.

The headline index reflects the answer to a single question concerning the state of economic activity and is not calculated from the components. Haver Analytics calculates a composite index from the five major components, which is comparable to the ISM manufacturing index. This calculated index fell to the neutral-level 50.0 in December—the lowest level since September—down from 55.4 in November, 52.7 in October, and 51.0 in December 2024 but up from a low of 42.5 in January 2024. The index is the average of five diffusion indexes: new orders, shipments, employment, supplier deliveries and inventories with equal weights (20% each).

In the latest survey, the new orders index fell to 0.0 in December after a 12.2-point gain to 15.9 in November, signaling steady orders this month and a marked improvement from a low of -35.0 in January 2024. The shipments index decreased to -5.7 in December, the lowest level in three months, following a 2.4-point increase to 16.8 in November, but it was up from a low of -22.7 in April 2024. The unfilled orders index dropped to -14.9 in December on top of a 1.9-point decrease to -5.8 in November, indicating unfilled orders contracted for the seventh straight month and to the weakest level since January 2024; the index reached a low of -24.2 in January 2024. The inventories index fell to 4.0 in December after a 7.7-point rise to 6.7 in November, suggesting that inventories expanded for two months following three consecutive months of contraction. Meanwhile, the delivery times index fell to -5.9 in December, the lowest reading since December 2024, from 7.7 in November, with 9.9% of respondents reporting higher delivery times and 15.8% reporting lower delivery times.

On the labor front, the number of employees index advanced to 7.3 in December after a 0.4-point increase to 6.6 in November, showing employment expanded for the sixth time in seven months and at the highest level since July. The index remained above a low of -9.7 in December 2023. A higher 16.2% of respondents reported an increase in employment in December while 8.9% reported a decline. The average workweek index slipped to 3.5 in December from 7.7 in November, remaining positive for a second month after two months in negative territory.

Inflation indicators eased this month but remained elevated. The prices paid index dropped to 37.6 in December, the lowest level since January, following a 3.4-point decrease to 49.0 in November. The index was up from a low of 21.1 in December 2024 and a low of 16.7 in December 2023 but significantly down from a high of 86.4 in April 2022. A 39.6% of respondents reported higher prices paid in December while only 2.0% reported lower prices paid. The prices received index fell to 19.8 in December, the lowest reading since February, following a 3.2-point decline to 24.0 in November. The index was up from a low of 4.2 in December 2024 and a low of 3.9 in July 2023 but well below a peak of 56.1 in March 2022. A 21.8% of respondents reported higher prices received in December while 2.0% reported lower prices received.

Firms grew more optimistic about the future business outlook in the latest survey. The index for future business conditions jumped to 35.7 in December, the strongest level since January, from 19.1 in November, with an increased 52.9% of respondents expecting business conditions to improve in the next six months. Future new orders rose to 38.0 in December, the highest figure since March 2022, from 23.3 in November and shipments rose to 33.3, the highest level since November 2024, from November’s 23.3. Growth in employment eased slightly to 8.8 in December from 11.9 in November but still showed continued employment expansion. Capital spending plans remained positive for the second successive month, with the future capital expenditures index at 6.9 in December compared with 11.5 in November. Expected prices paid fell to 55.4 in December, the lowest level since January, from 62.5 in November, while expected prices received rose to 46.5, the highest reading since April 2022, from November’s 41.3.

The indexes in this report are diffusion indexes and measure the percentage of respondents indicating an increase minus the percentage indicating a decrease with zero separating expansion from contraction.

The New York Fed survey data are contained in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database. The expectations series is in Haver’s **AS1REPNA** database.

251215L37.jpg

251215M37.jpg

- December General Business Conditions Index down 22.6 pts. to -3.9.
- Unfilled orders (-14.9) and shipments (-5.7) negative; employment (7.3, highest since July) and inventories (4.0) positive; new orders flat (0.0).
- Prices paid at an 11-month-low 37.6 and prices received at a 10-month-low 19.8, still elevated.
- Firms optimistic: Future Business Conditions Index at an 11-month-high 35.7 and future prices paid at an 11-month-low 55.4.

U.S. Empire State Manufacturing Index Plunges in December to a Three-Month Low

Robert Brusca

251215E.jpg

**Tankan overview:** Japan's Tankan report is an important quarterly assessment and outlook of the Japanese economy. Historically, the performance of manufacturers is considered to be the bellwether in this survey for performance of the economy. In the fourth quarter of 2025, the manufacturing index moved up to 15 from 14 in the third quarter. This compares to a value of 12 in the first quarter and a four-quarter average of 13.5. Since late-2006, the manufacturing index has averaged 5.3, marking the performance in 2025 as a substantial improvement from the long period where Japan struggled with deflation. On dated back to 2003, the manufacturing index has a standing in the queue of data in its 70.8 percentile, a reasonably firm reading. 

**Nonmanufacturers:** The index for nonmanufacturers logged a reading of 34 in the fourth quarter compared to 34 in the third quarter and a reading of 35 in the first quarter of 2025; the one-year average for nonmanufacturers is 34.3, marking that sector as little changed over the course of the year. Nonmanufacturing in the fourth quarter has an index standing at its 97.8 percentile, marking it as an extremely high standing on data back to late-2003. 

**Nonmanufacturing details:** Readings across the nonmanufacturing sector are above their respective one-year averages for all subsectors except transportation where the fourth quarter index backs down to 27 from an average of 30.5 and for restaurants & hotels that back down to a reading of 25 from an average of 39.3. The queue percentile standings for the subsectors show a good deal of strength with construction at a 98.9 percentile standing, services for businesses also at a 98.9 percentile standing, transportation - despite the back off from the average - is at a 94.4 percentile standing, and real estate and wholesaling are at 93.3 percentile standings on data back to 2003.  

**The Tankan outlook-** The survey also produces an outlook. For large manufacturers for the first quarter of 2026, the outlook metric moves up to 15 from what had been 12 for the fourth quarter of 2025. The outlook for nonmanufacturers is at 28, unchanged from the fourth quarter. The outlook for manufacturing has a queue standing in its 78.7 percentile on data back to 2003, while nonmanufacturing has a standing for the outlook reading at its 98.9 percentile marking these outlooks as quite good. 

**The BOJ is watching-** This is a survey the Bank of Japan will be looking at and assessing what policy should do and how strong the economy appears to be. On these data, the economy would appear to be firm, the outlook would appear to be solid, and if the Bank of Japan were to decide to pay more attention to inflation, the economy would seem to be in a position to absorb a rate hike without much difficulty.

**Other-sized enterprises-**
**Manufacturing:** The survey also produces results for medium-sized and small-sized firms, as well as outlooks for medium-sized and small-sized firms (that are not presented in the table). The fourth quarter assessments of performance, however, show improvements for manufacturing in both medium- and small-sized enterprises; they also show rankings of medium-sized firms in manufacturing in their 85th percentile, the same as for small sized enterprises. 

**Nonmanufacturing:** Nonmanufacturing for medium- and small-sized enterprises show improvements in the fourth quarter results and also demonstrates high rankings of those readings for those respective sectors.

**Summing up:**
On balance, it's a solid Tankan report for Japan's economy and should provide reassurance to the Bank of Japan and to the current government that the economy is on solid footing as each looks at the situation and tries to assess the best policy options. 

251215.jpg

Japan

Japan’s Tankan Ticks Higher for Large Manufacturers

Tian Yong Woon

This week, we assess Asia through a risk lens, given the recent flare-ups across the region. Japan–China tensions, following Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi’s recent remarks on Taiwan, have prompted some retaliatory measures from China, including travel advisories against visiting Japan. This raises the risk of a dent to Japan’s tourism income this year, given the significance of aggregate Chinese tourism expenditure (chart 1), although any such impact would come at a time when Japan is already grappling with the effects of overtourism. Beyond Japan–China relations, investors are also bracing for the Bank of Japan’s (BoJ) final scheduled policy decision of the year, where a rate hike is expected despite Takaichi’s pro-growth fiscal stance. This expectation reflects ongoing yen weakness (chart 2), alongside encouraging results from Japan’s Q3 Tankan survey, among other factors. While the anticipated hike is not, in itself, a risk, the associated increase in financing costs—coupled with the likelihood of higher government bond issuance to support growth objectives—adds to investor concerns.

Risks are also evident in China, particularly after the November data docket showed a continued deterioration in growth across multiple sectors (chart 3). While China’s 5% growth target for the year remains within reach, achieving it appears to hinge on a narrow set of growth drivers, notably trade. On this front, China has defied earlier investor concerns to record a substantial widening of its trade surplus this year, despite a worsening bilateral trade balance with the US (chart 4). However, while supportive of growth, this development risks drawing increased pushback from non-US trading partners that have been absorbing China’s excess capacity.

Elevated risks are also present elsewhere in Asia, particularly in Southeast Asia, where renewed military clashes between Thailand and Cambodia have once again pushed bilateral tensions to the fore (chart 5). Thailand additionally faces political uncertainty ahead of early elections, following Prime Minister Anutin’s dissolution of parliament last week. Lastly, we turn to semiconductor- and AI-related risks, which are especially pertinent to Asia given the dominance—and reliance—of Taiwan and South Korea in the sector. A key risk lies in the current extent of market optimism surrounding future AI-related earnings (chart 6), suggesting greater scope for disappointment than for further upside surprises.

**Japan-China tensions**
Geopolitics will likely remain front and centre in Asia heading into the new year,  with several flashpoints carrying the risk of broader regional spillovers. One such case is the recent flare-up in tensions between China and Japan, following new Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi’s parliamentary remarks on Taiwan. Since then, Chinese authorities have rolled out a series of measures — urging Chinese citizens to avoid travelling to or studying in Japan, reinstating an import ban on Japanese seafood, among others. While none of these steps are particularly substantial on their own, they underscore a rapidly deteriorating bilateral dynamic. The economic implications are not trivial. As shown in chart 1, spending by Chinese tourists has historically made up a significant share of Japan’s total inbound tourism receipts — roughly a quarter in recent quarters — with especially strong concentrations in certain regions such as Osaka. Although the absence of Mainland Chinese tourists has been keenly felt since tensions escalated, early indications suggest that increased arrivals from other countries have helped offset some of the shortfall. More recently, a series of close military encounters between China and Japan has further heightened concerns. The risk of miscalculation has grown, raising the possibility of an inadvertent escalation at a time when geopolitical sensitivities in the region are already elevated.


251215T1.jpg

**Japan**
Japan–China tensions aside, investors will also be focused on the Bank of Japan’s upcoming monetary policy meeting this week, the last of the year. After Governor Ueda’s recent remarks, markets are now expecting a 25 bps rate hike. This has been especially evident in the bond market, where yields have risen sharply in recent weeks (chart 2). The move partly reflects expectations of tighter policy, but also concerns Prime Minister Takaichi’s more expansionary fiscal stance. The recently submitted supplementary budget points to increased government bond issuance, adding supply pressure, weighing on bond prices, and pushing yields higher. The rise in yields also poses a risk when combined with increased bond issuance, as this implies higher financing costs for the government. A hike this month is still expected despite the government’s loose fiscal tilt, given yen weakness and recent readings of softer inflation. However, the outlook for any additional tightening beyond December remains uncertain. With the new year approaching and annual spring wage negotiations on the horizon, the BoJ will need further confirmation on wages and inflation before moving again. Meanwhile, the ongoing Japan–China frictions, while not yet generating major economic spillovers, remain a meaningful downside risk. Any material escalation could weigh on Japan’s outlook and complicate the case for further policy tightening.

251215T2.jpg

**China**
Moving to China, the latest monthly data point to a broad-based slowdown in growth in November. Year-on-year retail sales growth slowed to its weakest pace since 2022, while year-to-date year-on-year fixed asset investment growth fell to its lowest level since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (chart 3). Industrial production growth also eased, albeit to a lesser extent. In addition, house price declines accelerated, reversing the easing trend seen in previous months. Overall, the latest data extend the pattern of deteriorating growth observed in recent months. That said, it remains to be seen whether the November readings will ultimately cause China to miss its 5% growth target for the year, given the substantial head start accumulated over the first three quarters. Moreover, China has enjoyed a bumper year in trade, which we discuss in the next section.

251215T3.jpg

Looking more closely at China’s trade performance, it has become clear that earlier fears of a trade-driven collapse in China’s growth have not materialised. Instead, China’s overall trade surplus has continued to widen, having topped $1 trillion this year, even as its bilateral surplus with the US has fallen sharply (chart 4). This suggests that China’s surplus expansion has been driven by other trading partners, which have effectively been absorbing China’s excess capacity. The stronger-than-expected trade outturn has also been a key factor behind the upward revisions to China’s GDP outlook for the year, with growth still on track to meet the 5% target barring any major setbacks. While this dynamic is not a direct risk in itself, surging exports to these partner economies could become problematic if domestic industries in the receiving countries are unable to absorb the inflow or begin to feel crowded out. Such pressures may eventually provoke a policy response. Still, it remains uncertain whether these countries — many of them smaller economies — would adopt measures similar to those taken by the US, given the asymmetric nature of their economic relationships with China.

251215T4.jpg

**Thailand-Cambodia tensions**
Moving beyond Japan and China, region-specific tensions elsewhere in Asia also warrant attention, though their broader impact remains limited. Notably, renewed military clashes between Thailand and Cambodia have resurfaced despite an earlier peace deal brokered by Malaysia and the US. While the likelihood of these clashes escalating into a wider regional conflict is low — given their primarily border-specific nature — external pressures on both countries remain a latent risk. The previous ceasefire appeared to have been secured only after US President Trump threatened to withhold trade deals unless fighting ceased, suggesting that a similar “carrot-and-stick” approach may be used again to encourage another ceasefire, although nothing is certain. Domestically, Thailand faces additional near-term uncertainties. Prime Minister Anutin must contend with a range of issues, including preparations for early elections following his dissolution of parliament just last week, adding another layer of unpredictability (chart 5). The Thai government’s popularity has also dipped recently, partly due to criticism over its handling of floods in southern Thailand.

251215T5.jpg

**Semiconductors and AI**
Lastly, we turn to semiconductor and AI-related risks in Asia. As in markets outside the region, this year’s tech rallies are increasingly seen as overextended (chart 6), with some arguing they have entered bubble territory. Many now believe that much of the upside in future earnings has already been priced in, leaving more room for disappointment than for positive surprises. Geopolitical and competitive considerations remain important too, as highlighted by the recent US approval to sell Nvidia’s high-end (though not top-tier) H200 chips to China. However, this approval may not generate the expected enthusiasm among Chinese consumers. If the reaction mirrors that seen after the earlier approval of Nvidia’s lower-end H20 chips, China may use these openings to promote domestic chipmakers such as Huawei. This could help local firms catch up to US peers and gradually reduce reliance on imported semiconductors. Also, if US chipmaker earnings disappoint due to a lukewarm reception of the H200 chips, while local Chinese chipmakers see increased upside potential, this could translate into a divergence in equity price trajectories between the sector’s stocks in the respective markets.

251215T6.jpg

Asia

Economic Letter from Asia: Balancing Risks

251212F1.jpg

251212G1.jpg

The National Association of Realtors' Fixed Rate Mortgage Housing Affordability Index (HAI) improved 0.9% (3.6% y/y) to 106.2 in October after rising 4.7% in September, revised from 3.9%, following a 2.8% increase in August. The index level was the highest since February 2023. The level of home affordability was 18.1% higher than its low of 89.9 in October 2023, but 40.7% below the peak of 179.0 in April 2020.

The rise in October affordability occurred as the average mortgage rate fell to 6.33% from 6.43% in September. The fall in mortgage rates left them above their low of 6.26% in September of last year, though below a 7.70% high in October of 2023. They remained well above a December 2020 low of 2.73%. The median price of an existing single-family home rose 0.7% (2.2% y/y) to $420,600. That price compared to the record $438,600 in June 2025. In October, the principal plus interest payment eased 0.3% (+0.2% y/y) to $2,089 per month, down 9.6% from June’s record high of $2,311, but still well above the most recent low of $984 in February 2020. Monthly mortgage payments averaged a slightly lessened 23.5% of income during October, but remained well above a low of 14.0% of income in April 2020.

The change in housing costs in October was accompanied by a 0.5% rise (3.8% y/y) in median family income to $106,478 after falling 0.3% in September. Qualifying income declined 0.3% (+0.2% y/y) to $100,272, after falling for three straight months.

Housing affordability improved m/m in most of the country in October. The index in the Midwest, the country’s most affordable region, rose 1.5% (0.9% y/y) to 134.4. In the South, the index increased 0.7% (5.4% y/y) to 112.1, while the affordability index in the Northeast strengthened 1.1% (-1.4% y/y) to 93.7. Declining, however, was the affordability index in the West, where homes are the least affordable. The index eased 0.3% (+5.3% y/y) to 75.2 in October.

The Housing Affordability Index (HAI) equals 100 when a median-income borrower qualifies for an 80% mortgage on a median-priced existing single-family home. The HAI had exceeded 100 in each month since July 1990. It reached an all-time high of 213.3 in January 2013.

Data on Housing Affordability can be found in Haver’s **REALTOR** database. Median home sales prices are also available in **USECON**. Higher frequency interest rate data are found in **SURVEYS**, **WEEKLY**, and **DAILY**.

251212H1.jpg

251212I1.jpg

- Mortgage rates continue to decline.
- Median income strengthens.
- Affordability improves in most of country.

U.S. Housing Affordability Edges Higher in October

Andrew Cates

**The Blue Chip Consensus**
Before turning to the risks that could unsettle the global outlook in 2026, it’s worth noting the backdrop against which those risks are emerging. The first chart shows that forecasters have, if anything, become more optimistic in recent months, raising their 2026 GDP projections across many major economies. The upgrades are most visible in Asia’s tech-focused economies, where the semiconductor and AI upturn is lifting expectations, but the US has also benefited from stronger-than-expected momentum and fading concerns that tariffs would deliver a major growth hit. In short, the starting point for the global outlook has improved—making the downside scenarios explored in the next few charts all the more important to test.

251211Z1.jpg

**Policy divergence**
The second chart highlights one of the central risks to the 2026 outlook: monetary-policy calibration. Even as growth expectations have firmed, forecasters remain convinced that the major central banks still have a little further to go in their easing cycles. For both the Fed and the Bank of England, respondents expect additional rate cuts in early 2026, albeit with growing uncertainty about the exact timing and pace. The broader message is that the heavy lifting on disinflation is now largely done, and what remains are finer calibration risks—where cutting too slowly risks choking momentum, while cutting too aggressively risks undoing progress on inflation. The ECB outlook is far more fragmented. A large share of forecasters sees the next step as a cut—though not necessarily soon—but a meaningful minority lean toward a possible hike. At the opposite pole is the Bank of Japan. Unlike its peers, the BoJ is still expected to tighten policy, reflecting Japan’s firmer growth foundation and a more durable inflation process. This creates a notable US–Japan policy divergence, which has already influenced currency and bond-market behaviour and could become a larger global shock-transmission channel in 2026.

251211Z2.jpg

**Financial market stress**
The third chart highlights another source of downside risk: the widening gap between financial-market calm and real-economy anxiety. The US VIX has spent most of the past year hovering near multi-decade lows, consistent with rich valuations, abundant liquidity and a broadly optimistic macro narrative. Yet measured global economic policy uncertainty remains unusually elevated, reflecting geopolitical fragmentation, shifting trade regimes, and highly uncertain fiscal trajectories. This disconnect matters. Periods in which markets price near-perfection while the policy environment deteriorates have often been precursors to sharp repricing episodes. With valuations stretched and volatility compressed, it would not take much—a policy misstep, a geopolitical shock, or a rapid shift in rate expectations—to trigger a correction big enough to destabilise confidence in 2026.

251211Z3.jpg

**AI expectations**
Against that backdrop, our next chart highlights a more subtle but no less important vulnerability: expectations around AI-driven growth. While AI has undoubtedly been a powerful tailwind for market sentiment—and arguably a key reason why forecasters have nudged up 2026 growth projections—our survey suggests that most respondents believe financial markets are overestimating the likely economic gains. Only around a third think current expectations are broadly accurate; almost nobody believes markets are underestimating AI’s impact. This imbalance matters. When valuations are rich and optimism is heavily front-loaded, any disappointment in AI adoption, productivity gains or investment payoffs could unwind a meaningful chunk of the recent market strength. In other words, the same force lifting the outlook today could become a meaningful downside catalyst in 2026 if reality fails to keep pace with expectation.

251211Z4.jpg

**Trade disruption** 
A further downside risk comes from the latent fragilities in global trade and logistics. The Baltic Dry Index has climbed sharply in recent months, hinting at firmer shipping demand and rising transport costs, even as the Global Supply Chain Pressure Index has edged lower. That combination is telling: headline congestion may not yet be building, but underlying pressures—tight vessel availability, shifting trade routes, selective port bottlenecks and stronger goods flows—are quietly re-accumulating beneath the surface. None of this resembles the acute disruptions of 2021–22, but the risk is that a seemingly contained system can tighten very quickly. For a global economy that remains vulnerable to cost shocks and production delays, any renewed squeeze in trade logistics would add another meaningful downside risk as we look toward 2026.

251211Z5.jpg

**Geopolitical shocks** 
Geopolitical risk has eased from the extremes seen during the early stages of the Israel–Gaza conflict, but the broader backdrop remains far from settled. The global Geopolitical Risk Index is still running well above its pre-pandemic norm, and volatility is now being driven less by any single flashpoint and more by a crowded field of simmering risks. These range from an unstable Russia–Ukraine stalemate and intensifying U.S.–China strategic rivalry to ongoing tensions across the Taiwan Strait, a fragile security environment in the South China Sea, periodic flare-ups in the Caucasus and Sahel, and rising political strain ahead of multiple major elections in 2026. Venezuela’s increasing instability—both domestically and in relation to its border dispute with Guyana—adds another potential source of disruption, particularly for energy markets. While none of these risks is dominating headlines at present, history shows that geopolitical shocks rarely give advance warning. A sudden escalation in any of these theatres could easily unsettle trade flows, energy prices or investor sentiment—another meaningful downside risk as we approach 2026.

251211Z6.jpg

As 2025 draws to a close, the global economy enters 2026 with a surprisingly resilient backdrop: equity markets are still trading near cycle highs, volatility is subdued, and consensus forecasts have been drifting upward in recent months—helped by a robust US economy, firmer momentum across Asia, and optimism that AI-related investment will continue to lift the medium-term outlook (chart 1). Against this relatively constructive starting point, we focus this week on the key downside risks that could challenge the consensus narrative next year: the possibility of monetary-policy miscalibration (chart 2); the gap between elevated policy uncertainty and unusually calm financial markets (chart 3); the risk that financial markets may be overestimating the gains from AI (chart 4); renewed strain in global trade (chart 5); and geopolitical tensions (chart 6). These risks do not dominate the baseline outlook, but they help frame the vulnerabilities that could matter if global conditions deteriorate. Next week, we will turn to the upside risks—the forces that could allow the world economy to outperform again in 2026.

<iframe data-testid="embed-iframe" style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/0Nk11qt4bTvt9yn9hVzycv?utm_source=generator" width="100%" height="152" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" loading="lazy"></iframe>

Economy in Brief: 2002

Jump to: