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/050228c.jpg" width="353">
The Chicago Purchasing Managers Business Barometer rose for the second month and increased to 62.7 in February, beating Consensus expectations for a decline to 60.2.
During the last ten years there has been a 67% correlation between the level of the Chicago Business Barometer and the three month change in factory sector industrial output. That correlation has risen to 82% during the last five years.
The employment index surged 4.9 points to 57.7, the highest level since November. During the last ten years there has been a 78% correlation between the level of the employment index and the three month change in factory sector employment. The new orders index rose to the highest level since October.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050228d.jpg" width="353">
The index of prices paid fell sharply to the lowest level in nearly a year. During the last ten years there has been an 86% correlation between the Chicago price index and the three month change in the &quot;core&quot; intermediate goods PPI.

<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">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Feb&nbsp;&#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Business Barometer</td>
<td>62.7</td>
<td>62.4</td>
<td>64.7</td>
<td>62.9</td>
<td>54.6</td>
<td>52.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; New Orders</td>
<td>68.5</td>
<td>65.8</td>
<td>66.4</td>
<td>67.0</td>
<td>58.0</td>
<td>56.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid</td>
<td>70.1</td>
<td>76.5</td>
<td>67.7</td>
<td>80.1</td>
<td>55.8</td>
<td>56.9</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Chicago Purchasing Managers Business Barometer rose for the second month and increased to 62.7 in February, beating Consensus expectations for a decline to 60.2. During the last ten years there has been a 67% correlation between [...]

Chicago Purchasing Agents' Index 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/050228b.jpg" width="353">
Sales of new single-family homes fell a sharp 9.2% in January to 1.106M but the previously reported slight gain in December was revised to a 5.6% increase. Consensus estimates had been for sales of 1.125M.
The decline in sales last month was led by a 40.3% drop in the Midwest (-33.2% y/y). In the Northeast sales fell 17.1% (-33.7% y/y) and in the South sales also fell by 3.3% (+1.3% y/y). In the West sales rose 5.6% in January (+16.6% y/y).
The median price of a new single family home fell to $199,400 (-4.8% y/y).
The figures from the Census Department reflect homes sold as opposed to the figures on existing home sales from the National Association of Realtors which reflect closings of sales in earlier 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/@E9/@E904/@E90401/@E90401.HTM">Homes Sales (000s, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">New Single-Family</td>
<td>1,106</td>
<td>1,218</td>
<td>-4.2%</td>
<td>1,196</td>
<td>1,089</td>
<td>976</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Sales of new single-family homes fell a sharp 9.2% in January to 1.106M but the previously reported slight gain in December was revised to a 5.6% increase. Consensus estimates had been for sales of 1.125M. The decline in sales last [...]

New Home Sales Fell

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050228a.jpg" width="353">
Personal income dropped last month 2.3% following the 3.7% jump in December which was driven by Microsoft&#39;s dividend payment. Consensus expectations had been for a 2.6% decline. Excluding the dividend effect personal income increased 0.5% last month after a 0.6% rise in December. Figures from July through December were revised
Wage &amp; salary income rose 0.6% (5.8% y/y) in January after an upwardly revised 0.5% December gain. Factory sector wages inched 0.1% higher but rose 4.8% y/y. Earlier figures were revised up sharply
Personal disposable income fell 2.6% (5.8% y/y) after the 4.1% surge in December. Adjusted for price inflation disposable income fell 2.8% m/m but rose 3.5% y/y.
Personal consumption fell slightly after the 0.8% surge in December and spending was lightly short of Consensus expectations for a 0.1% rise. Durable goods spending fell 4.3% and reversed a like gain in December due to lower motor vehicle sales. Spending on nondurables rose 0.8% despite the decline in gasoline prices last month and services spending rose 0.4% (5.3% y/y).
The PCE chain price index rose 0.2% in January. The 0.3% rise in the price index less food &amp; energy was the steepest since December 2002.

<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">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Personal Income</td>
<td>-2.3%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Personal Consumption</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Savings Rate</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">PCE Chain Price Index</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Less food &amp; energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Personal income dropped last month 2.3% following the 3.7% jump in December which was driven by Microsoft's dividend payment. Consensus expectations had been for a 2.6% decline. Excluding the dividend effect personal income increased [...]

U.S. Personal Income Down

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050228a.jpg" width="353">
Personal income dropped last month 2.3% following the 3.7% jump in December which was driven by Microsoft&#39;s dividend payment. Consensus expectations had been for a 2.6% decline. Excluding the dividend effect personal income increased 0.5% last month after a 0.6% rise in December. Figures from July through December were revised
Wage &amp; salary income rose 0.6% (5.8% y/y) in January after an upwardly revised 0.5% December gain. Factory sector wages inched 0.1% higher but rose 4.8% y/y. Earlier figures were revised up sharply
Personal disposable income fell 2.6% (5.8% y/y) after the 4.1% surge in December. Adjusted for price inflation disposable income fell 2.8% m/m but rose 3.5% y/y.
Personal consumption fell slightly after the 0.8% surge in December and spending was lightly short of Consensus expectations for a 0.1% rise. Durable goods spending fell 4.3% and reversed a like gain in December due to lower motor vehicle sales. Spending on nondurables rose 0.8% despite the decline in gasoline prices last month and services spending rose 0.4% (5.3% y/y).
The PCE chain price index rose 0.2% in January. The 0.3% rise in the price index less food &amp; energy was the steepest since December 2002.

<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">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Personal Income</td>
<td>-2.3%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Personal Consumption</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Savings Rate</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">PCE Chain Price Index</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Less food &amp; energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
New Home Sales Fell 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> February 28, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050228b.jpg" width="353">
Sales of new single-family homes fell a sharp 9.2% in January to 1.106M but the previously reported slight gain in December was revised to a 5.6% increase. Consensus estimates had been for sales of 1.125M.
The decline in sales last month was led by a 40.3% drop in the Midwest (-33.2% y/y). In the Northeast sales fell 17.1% (-33.7% y/y) and in the South sales also fell by 3.3% (+1.3% y/y). In the West sales rose 5.6% in January (+16.6% y/y).
The median price of a new single family home fell to $199,400 (-4.8% y/y).
The figures from the Census Department reflect homes sold as opposed to the figures on existing home sales from the National Association of Realtors which reflect closings of sales in earlier 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/@E9/@E904/@E90401/@E90401.HTM">Homes Sales (000s, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">New Single-Family</td>
<td>1,106</td>
<td>1,218</td>
<td>-4.2%</td>
<td>1,196</td>
<td>1,089</td>
<td>976</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Chicago Purchasing Agents' Index Up Again 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> February 28, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050228c.jpg" width="353">
The Chicago Purchasing Managers Business Barometer rose for the second month and increased to 62.7 in February, beating Consensus expectations for a decline to 60.2.
During the last ten years there has been a 67% correlation between the level of the Chicago Business Barometer and the three month change in factory sector industrial output. That correlation has risen to 82% during the last five years.
The employment index surged 4.9 points to 57.7, the highest level since November. During the last ten years there has been a 78% correlation between the level of the employment index and the three month change in factory sector employment. The new orders index rose to the highest level since October.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050228d.jpg" width="353">
The index of prices paid fell sharply to the lowest level in nearly a year. During the last ten years there has been an 86% correlation between the Chicago price index and the three month change in the &quot;core&quot; intermediate goods PPI.

<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">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Feb&nbsp;&#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Business Barometer</td>
<td>62.7</td>
<td>62.4</td>
<td>64.7</td>
<td>62.9</td>
<td>54.6</td>
<td>52.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; New Orders</td>
<td>68.5</td>
<td>65.8</td>
<td>66.4</td>
<td>67.0</td>
<td>58.0</td>
<td>56.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid</td>
<td>70.1</td>
<td>76.5</td>
<td>67.7</td>
<td>80.1</td>
<td>55.8</td>
<td>56.9</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Carol Stone, CBE

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050225c.jpg" width="353">
Labor markets in disparate countries presently face disparate employment conditions. In data reported today, France, for instance, saw its January unemployment rate touch 10%, following more than a year hovering around 9.9%. Rates rose for both men and women and for adults both over and under age 50. Obviously, a one-decimal move is not much, but it still signals that the French economy struggles, along with most of its neighbors, to find improvement for its labor force.
Hungary has a similar concern, as its unemployment rate rose to 6.6% in January, the highest since these data started monthly publication in 2001 (they are reported as 3-month moving averages, however, and are contiguous with the separate quarterly series also maintained in Haver&#39;s EMERGECW database). While some of this latest monthly change is seasonal, weakness in Hungarian employment is clearly the major source of the unemployment problem. A brief spurt in employment occurred in 2003 and kept the unemployment rate steady, but that played out last year, as seen in the table below.
Norway has somewhat the opposite situation, as a modest recovery in employment last year helped to keep the unemployment rate low and steady. In December, it remained at 4.4%, the same as the average for 2004 overall and off a mid-2003 peak of 4.7%.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050225d.jpg" width="353">
Brazil calculates its unemployment rate based on both the total working-age population and the &quot;economically active&quot; population. With a large segment not involved in commercial activity, the participation rate is about 57%, so there is considerable difference in the two unemployment measures. The unemployment count in 2004 was 2.49 million; this is 6.6% of the total working-age population and 11.5% of the &quot;economically active&quot; population. &quot;Working age&quot; in Brazil begins at age 10, and last year was 38.06 million people. Data for Brazil are shown in Haver&#39;s EMERGELA database.
Whichever unemployment rate base is used, the unemployment rate in Brazil has come down substantially in the last nine months or so. Following some weakness in 2003 and early last year, employment has rebounded and unemployment has fallen sharply. Thus, the unemployment rate relative to the economically active population (what we&#39;d call the &quot;labor force&quot;) has fallen from a recent peak of 13.1% in April 2004 to 10.2% in January 2005. Brazil&#39;s hesitant recovery continues.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Unemployment Rates &amp; Related Data</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 2004</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 2004</th>
<th scope="col">Year Ago</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France (seas adj)</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>9.9</td>
<td>9.9</td>
<td>9.9</td>
<td>9.9</td>
<td>9.7</td>
<td>9.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Hungary*</td>
<td>6.6</td>
<td>6.3</td>
<td>6.3</td>
<td>5.8</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>5.8</td>
<td>5.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Employment (12-mo&nbsp; % change)</td>
<td>-0.7</td>
<td>-1.1</td>
<td>-1.4</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>-1.3</td>
<td>0.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Norway (seas adj)</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>4.6</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>4.5</td>
<td>3.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Employment (12-mo&nbsp; % change)</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>-0.7</td>
<td>0.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Brazil: % of Working Age Population**</td>
<td>5.7</td>
<td>5.4</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>6.6</td>
<td>6.6</td>
<td>7.0</td>
<td>6.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; % of Economically Active Population</td>
<td>10.2</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>10.6</td>
<td>11.7</td>
<td>11.5</td>
<td>12.3</td>
<td>11.7</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Labor markets in disparate countries presently face disparate employment conditions. In data reported today, France, for instance, saw its January unemployment rate touch 10%, following more than a year hovering around 9.9%. Rates [...]

January Unemployment Rates Up in France and Hungary, Down in Norway and Brazil

<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/050225b.jpg" width="353">
Sales of existing single family homes fell for the second month and earlier sales estimates were revised down. January sales of 5.94M fell 0.5% from December which fell 2.8% from November. Consensus expectations had been for December sales of 6.75M.
Improved methodology and better modeling led to monthly revisions back through 1999. The figures reflect closings of home sales in earlier months.
Sales were mixed m/m across the country&#39;s regions. In the Northeast sales fell 3.7% (+6.8% y/y) and in the Midwest sales fell 5.8% (+9.2% y/y). In the South sales rose 3.0% (+13.3% y/y) and in the West sales ticked 0.7% higher (+17.7% y/y).
The median price of an existing home single family home fell m/m to $186,900 (+9.8% y/y).
The latest release from the National Association of Realtors is available <a href="http://www.realtor.org/publicaffairsweb.nsf/Pages/EHSJan05?OpenDocument"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E905/@E90501/@E90501.HTM">Existing Home Sales (000, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Existing Single-Family</td>
<td>&nbsp;5,940</td>
<td>&nbsp;5,970</td>
<td>12.5%</td>
<td>5,913</td>
<td>5,441</td>
<td>4,995</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Sales of existing single family homes fell for the second month and earlier sales estimates were revised down. January sales of 5.94M fell 0.5% from December which fell 2.8% from November. Consensus expectations had been for December [...]

U.S. Existing Home Sales Fell 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/050225a.jpg" width="353">
US real GDP growth in 4Q04 was revised up to 3.8% (AR), about the same rate of growth as in the prior quarter. The Consensus expectation had been for 3.6% growth in 4Q.
Trade sector deterioration is now estimated to have subtracted less from GDP growth; 1.43 percentage points versus 1.73 points estimated earlier. Statistics Canada corrected a $1.4B underestimation of U.S. exports to Canada during November. The correction contributed to a revision in total US goods exports to a 1.9% rate of growth (6.6% y/y) from -6.8% estimated in the advance report. Imports of goods rose 15.3% (11.4% y/y), revised from 12.2%.
An upward revision to inventory accumulation indicated that production increases to raise inventories added 0.6 percentage points to GDP growth versus 0.4 percentage points estimated earlier.
Domestic demand growth also was revised up slightly to 4.5% as growth in business fixed investment in equipment &amp; software was raised to 18.0% (14.4% y/y) from 14.9%. Residential investment growth also was raised to 2.1% (6.2% y/y) from 0.3% but growth in PCE was lowered to 4.2% (3.7% y/y) from 4.6%.
Price inflation was revised up slightly to 2.1%. The price index for domestic demand grew 2.7% (2.9% y/y) driven by an upwardly revised 5.4% (4.9% y/y) increase in the state &amp; local government price index.
Corporate profits for 4Q will be released on March 30th and will incorporate the effects of thespecial dividend paid to shareholders by Microsoft Corporation.
<a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2005/200502/200502pap.pdf">The Reform of 1979: How It Happened and Why</a> is from the Research &amp; Statistics and Monetary Affairs Division of the US Federal Reserve Board.

<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 2000$, % AR</a></th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;04 (Prelim.</th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;04 (Advance)</th>
<th scope="col">3Q &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">GDP</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Inventory Effect</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Final Sales</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Trade Effect</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Domestic Final Demand</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Chained GDP Price Index</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

US real GDP growth in 4Q04 was revised up to 3.8% (AR), about the same rate of growth as in the prior quarter. The Consensus expectation had been for 3.6% growth in 4Q. Trade sector deterioration is now estimated to have subtracted [...]

US GDP Growth Revised 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" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050225a.jpg" width="353">
US real GDP growth in 4Q04 was revised up to 3.8% (AR), about the same rate of growth as in the prior quarter. The Consensus expectation had been for 3.6% growth in 4Q.
Trade sector deterioration is now estimated to have subtracted less from GDP growth; 1.43 percentage points versus 1.73 points estimated earlier. Statistics Canada corrected a $1.4B underestimation of U.S. exports to Canada during November. The correction contributed to a revision in total US goods exports to a 1.9% rate of growth (6.6% y/y) from -6.8% estimated in the advance report. Imports of goods rose 15.3% (11.4% y/y), revised from 12.2%.
An upward revision to inventory accumulation indicated that production increases to raise inventories added 0.6 percentage points to GDP growth versus 0.4 percentage points estimated earlier.
Domestic demand growth also was revised up slightly to 4.5% as growth in business fixed investment in equipment &amp; software was raised to 18.0% (14.4% y/y) from 14.9%. Residential investment growth also was raised to 2.1% (6.2% y/y) from 0.3% but growth in PCE was lowered to 4.2% (3.7% y/y) from 4.6%.
Price inflation was revised up slightly to 2.1%. The price index for domestic demand grew 2.7% (2.9% y/y) driven by an upwardly revised 5.4% (4.9% y/y) increase in the state &amp; local government price index.
The release of corporate profits for 4Q was delayed until March 30th to incorporate the effects of thespecial dividend paid to shareholders by Microsoft Corporation.
<a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2005/200502/200502pap.pdf">The Reform of 1979: How It Happened and Why</a> is from the Research &amp; Statistics and Monetary Affairs Division of the US Federal Reserve Board.

<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 2000$, % AR</a></th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;04 (Prelim.</th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;04 (Advance)</th>
<th scope="col">3Q &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">GDP</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Inventory Effect</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Final Sales</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Trade Effect</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Domestic Final Demand</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Chained GDP Price Index</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Existing Home Sales Fell Again 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> February 25, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050225b.jpg" width="353">
Sales of existing single family homes fell for the second month and earlier sales estimates were revised down. January sales of 5.94M fell 0.5% from December which fell 2.8% from November. Consensus expectations had been for December sales of 6.75M.
Improved methodology and better modeling led to monthly revisions back through 1999. The figures reflect closings of home sales in earlier months.
Sales were mixed m/m across the country&#39;s regions. In the Northeast sales fell 3.7% (+6.8% y/y) and in the Midwest sales fell 5.8% (+9.2% y/y). In the South sales rose 3.0% (+13.3% y/y) and in the West sales ticked 0.7% higher (+17.7% y/y).
The median price of an existing home single family home fell m/m to $186,900 (+9.8% y/y).
The latest release from the National Association of Realtors is available <a href="http://www.realtor.org/publicaffairsweb.nsf/Pages/EHSJan05?OpenDocument"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E905/@E90501/@E90501.HTM">Existing Home Sales (000, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Existing Single-Family</td>
<td>&nbsp;5,940</td>
<td>&nbsp;5,970</td>
<td>12.5%</td>
<td>5,913</td>
<td>5,441</td>
<td>4,995</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

PMIs showing widespread revival of global economy

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

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

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

260709A1.jpg

260709B1.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance declined 2,000 to 215,000 in the week ending July 4, from 217,000 in the week ending June 27, revised from 215,000. The four-week average was 218,750 in the July 4 week, down from 222,500 in the week ending June 27. The Action Economics/Haver Analytics Survey looked for 218,000 claims to have been filed. 

The total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries—also known as “continuing claims”—rose by 8,000 to 1.814 million in the week ending June 27, from 1.806 million in the week ending June 20, revised from 1.814 million. The four-week moving average rose to 1.808 million in the June 27 week from 1.801 million in the June 20 week. The insured unemployment rate was unchanged at 1.2% in the week of June 27. Except for a one-week dip to 1.1% in the week of April 25, the insured unemployment rate has been at 1.2% since the week of November 29, 2025.

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ending June 20, the highest unemployment rates were in Washington (2.03%), New Jersey (2.11%), Minnesota (2.15%), and Puerto Rico (2.45%). The lowest rates were in South Dakota (0.28%), Florida (0.35%), Alabama and North Carolina (both 0.41%), Louisiana (0.42%), and Arkansas (0.49%). Rates in other notable states include California (1.88%), Pennsylvania (1.63%), Illinois (1.58%), New York (1.52%), and Texas (1.12%). These state data are not seasonally adjusted.

Data on weekly unemployment claims are from the Department of Labor itself, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They begin in 1967 and are contained in Haver’s **WEEKLY** database and summarized monthly in **USECON**. Data for individual states are in **REGIONW** back to December 1986.

260709C1.jpg

260709D1.jpg

- New claims declined by 2,000 to 215,000 in the week ending July 4.
- Continuing claims rose by 8,000 to 1.814 million in the week ending June 27.
- The insured unemployment rate was unchanged at 1.2% in the week of June 27.

U.S. Initial Unemployment Claims Declined in the Week of July 4

Andrew Cates

**Growth Surprises Continue to Underpin Equity Resilience**
Global equity markets have proved remarkably resilient in recent weeks, shrugging off intermittent bouts of geopolitical and policy uncertainty to grind higher. Chart 1 below helps explain why: it tracks the relationship between global growth-versus-inflation surprises and world equity markets, and on that measure the recent run of global growth data has continued to surprise on the upside relative to inflation outturns — a combination that has historically been supportive for risk assets. Whether that resilience persists will depend on whether the growth-surprise advantage evident in the chart below can be sustained in the face of the inflationary pressures explored below.

260709Z1.jpg

**PMIs Confirm a Broadly Solid Global Expansion**
This week's final composite PMI readings for June reinforced the broader impression of resilient global growth. As chart 2 below shows, most major economies posted readings comfortably in expansionary territory, with India continuing to lead the pack and the US not far behind. Even the laggards in the sample are hovering close to the expansion threshold rather than falling decisively below it, suggesting stabilisation rather than outright contraction (and with the UK a notable exception).

260709Z2.jpg

**Inflation Surprises Are Creeping Back, and Bond Yields Are Taking Notice**
The US growth picture painted by Haver's surprise indices broadly echoes the message from the global PMI data. Chart 3 below shows the combined growth-and-inflation surprise index drifting higher this week, and closer inspection suggests growth is doing most of that work, with activity data continuing to outperform expectations. That is, on the face of it, good news. But it has not stopped bond markets from taking notice: short-dated Treasury yields have remained elevated in recent weeks, as stronger growth keeps alive the possibility that the Federal Reserve holds rates higher for longer or even lifts them in coming weeks.

260709Z3.jpg

**Supply Chains Are Tightening** 
Latest data show that global supply chain pressures tightened by less in June than they had the month before, likely reflecting the easing of Middle East tensions through much of the period. Chart 4 below shows that pressures troughed in the middle of last year and have been building gradually since, though June's slower pace of tightening suggests that easing had started to feed through. Still, today's flare-up threatens to undo that improvement, particularly if it affects shipping routes or energy flows through the region once again.

260709Z4.jpg

**Extreme Weather: An Old Supply-Side Risk Returns**
Geopolitics is not the only source of supply-side risk currently in play. Large parts of Europe have been gripped this week by another intense and prolonged heatwave, with temperatures in several major cities running well above seasonal norms. Extreme heat of this kind carries real economic costs: it depresses labour productivity, particularly in outdoor and manufacturing-adjacent sectors, strains electricity grids as air-conditioning demand spikes, and can disrupt agricultural output and river-based transport when water levels fall. Episodes like this have become more frequent in recent years, and while any single heatwave rarely shifts the macro picture on its own, the cumulative effect of more frequent and more severe weather events could start showing up in productivity and inflation data across the advanced economies. It is a reminder that the supply side of the global economy faces structural as well as cyclical challenges, and that climate-related disruption deserves a permanent place alongside geopolitics and demographics in any assessment of medium-term inflation risk.

260709Z5.jpg

**AI Investment: The Other Side of the Supply Equation**
Set against these supply-side headwinds is a genuinely positive structural development: the extraordinary scale of private investment now flowing into artificial intelligence. Chart 6 below shows just how sharply that investment has grown in recent years, reaching a fresh high last year. If even a fraction of that investment translates into genuine productivity gains, it could provide a meaningful long-run offset to the energy, climate and geopolitical constraints highlighted elsewhere in this week's charts. The scale of the bet now being placed on AI is large enough that it is beginning to show up in aggregate investment and capital expenditure data across the advanced economies, and it is likely to remain one of the defining structural themes shaping the global growth outlook over the remainder of this decade.

260709Z6.jpg

Global markets head into this week’s closing stages digesting a mixed set of signals. Last week's US non-farm payrolls report undershot expectations, adding to questions about the durability of the US labour market even as broader activity data have continued to hold up well. Compounding that picture, news broke today of renewed instability in the Middle East, reintroducing a geopolitical risk premium into markets just as investors had begun to look past it. Global equity markets have nonetheless remained resilient, continuing to track the broadly encouraging tone of incoming activity data (chart 1). That resilience was reinforced by a solid set of global PMIs across most major economies over the past few days (chart 2). Haver's surprise indices tell a similar story of positive growth momentum in the US, but with an important caveat: incoming inflation data have also been surprising to the upside, driven largely by higher oil prices (chart 3). These inflation risks could persist moreover, as global supply chain pressures have picked up in recent months and today's flare-up in the Middle East threatens to add further strain (chart 4). The world economy remains vulnerable to other supply-side shocks too, such as the extreme heat gripping much of Europe this week (chart 5). Still, on the other side of the ledger the enormous scale of investment now flowing into artificial intelligence could be a genuine source of supply-side potential (chart 6).

<iframe data-testid="embed-iframe" style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/0dl4LKZaL1oTC5UPIaqrA9?utm_source=generator&si=7aa69345dbfd4ac4" width="100%" height="152" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" loading="lazy"></iframe>

Charts of the Week: Growth Holds Firm

260708A2.jpg

260708B2.jpg

Mortgage applications dropped 2.2% w/w (-5.4% y/y) in the week ending July 3, following no change in the week ending June 26, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey. Applications for loans to purchase a house edged down 0.6% w/w (-6.3% y/y) in the latest week, after rising 0.5% w/w (3.2% y/y) in the June 26 week.  Applications for loan refinancing dropped 4.1% w/w (-4.2% y/y) in the week ending July 3, after declining 0.7% w/w (+9.1% y/y) in the June 26 week.

The effective interest rate on a 30-year fixed-rate loan rose 1bp to 6.77% in the week ending July 3 from 6.76% in the week ending June 26. The rate on 15-year fixed-rate mortgages edged down 2bps to 6.17% in the July 3 week from 6.19% in the June 26 week. The 30-year Jumbo rate edged down 1bp to 6.62% in the latest week from 6.63% in the June 26 week. The rate on a 5-year ARM rose 5bps to 6.19% in the July 3 week from 6.14% in the June 26 week.

The share of applications for refinancing an existing loan declined to 40.6% of total applications in the week of July 3 from 41.4% in the June 26 week. The adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) share of activity edged up to 7.8% in the July 3 week from 7.6% in the June 26 week.

The average size of a mortgage declined 0.4% w/w (+1.3% y/y) to $391,500 in the week ending July 3, after rising 1.1% w/w (0.4% y/y) to $393,200 in the week ending June 26. The average size of a purchase loan declined 1.0% w/w (+4.3% y/y) to $451,000 in the latest week, after rising 1.2% w/w (2.7% y/y) to $455,600 in the June 26 week. The average size of a loan to refinance a mortgage edged down 0.1% w/w (-3.9% y/y) to $304,600 in the week ending July 3, after rising 0.5% w/w (-2.8% y/y) to $304,900 in the June 26 week.

The Mortgage Bankers Association Survey covers 75% of all U.S. retail residential mortgage applications and has been conducted weekly since 1990. Respondents include mortgage bankers, commercial banks and thrifts. The base period and value for all indexes is March 16, 1990=100. The figures for weekly mortgage applications and interest rates are available in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database.

- Both applications for loans to purchase and applications for loan refinancing declined in the latest week.
- Interest rate on 30-year fixed-rate loans rose 1bp to 6.77%. 
- Average loan size edged down.

U.S. Mortgage Applications Retrenched in the July 3 Week

Robert Brusca

260708E.jpg

**The Clash!**
The U.S.-Iranian clash in the Middle East resulted in a closure of the Strait of Hormuz that collapsed the economy watchers index in Japan earlier this year. However, as the war-like conditions settled down and the two sides have moved toward some kind of cease fire or a more permanent arrangement, in the wake of that comparative tranquility, the economy watchers index improved, and its future index improved more sharply. These comments applied to the data in the table and conditions up to the end of June.

**New day dawning...**
However, the data in the table are unrelated to what has happened in the past two days, when Iran took potshots at a couple of ships in the Strait, causing the U.S. to retaliate and President Trump to declare that the ceasefire has now ended. The door remains open for some kind of talks; however, the president’s recent remarks carried in the newspapers has clearly stated that the ceasefire has ended, and the U.S. intends to hit Iran and has suggested that it intends to hit it ‘hard.’ At the same time, Mr. Trump has said the door remains open to continuing talk and negotiations if both sides still want to get together; however, he admits he is not optimistic.

**Precarious times and conditions**
So, these are precarious conditions. Oil prices have already responded and moved higher. We have Japan’s economic data for June showing some revival in the current index and some sharply higher revivals over the last few months in the future index. However, when the dust clears the queue standings of the current and future indexes are revealed, they are pretty similar, with the current index at a standing of 29.6% and the future index of 31.6%. Both the current and future readings coalesce around a 30-percentile standing, marking the two segments of the survey as usually stronger about 70% of the time which marks the latest readings as relatively weak. And that is before we take the new realities of July into account.

**The current IS the future...**
There isn't too much point in talking about the two parts of the survey separately. The current and future surveys are simply not that different. This month, the lowest percentile standing in the current subindexes is housing, at an 11.5 percentile standing, followed by employment at a 17.8 percentile standing. In the future index, housing has an 11.1 percentile standing and employment has an 18.6 percentile standing; these readings are also the two lowest rankings in the future survey.

**Sequential improvement is only point-to-point**
Over three months, we can see the point-to-point changes in the current index and some improvements in all of the components except housing. In the future index, the three-month changes show point-to-point improvements in all of the components. However, both surveys show point-to-point declines over six months and broad point-to-point declines over 12 months as well. Looking at the changes based on smooth data (shown at the bottom of the table), for the three-month averages compared to six-month averages and six-month averages compared to 12-month averages, conditions show no improvement. We see no improvements in the current or future indexes over three months or six months, and no improvement in the future index in the 12-month average compared to 12-month average of 12 months ago—although 40% of the components in the current index are improved over 12 months compared to 12 months ago.

260708.jpg

**Summing up**
The bottom line here seems to be that the opening of the armed conflict in Iran that led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz was a terrible blow according to the economy watchers. However, once conditions settled down, the willingness to believe that conditions were going to get better and eventually open the Strait led to improved perceptions as things appeared to be headed back toward normal. Now, war-like conditions are back into effect for a period that's more recent than the tabular data can address. It seems likely that we are going to see the indexes decline once again if this current rupture in the normalization process is unable to be repaired soon. The responses and changes in the economy watchers index illustrate a couple of things: one, being that the Strait of Hormuz is very important; two, being that the survey participants were willing to believe that the former war participants could act in a civilized manner and reopen the Strait. The question now is whether the survey participants can believe that after one normalization agreement fell apart, the next agreement is one that they can believe in. That's what we will be waiting to see.

Japan

Economy Watchers Poll Marks Revival—Still Weak; What’s Next Now with a New Rift?

Sandy Batten

260707J40.jpg

260707K40.jpg

The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services (BOP basis) widened markedly to $77.6 billion in May from a downwardly revised $54.6 billion in April (previously -$55.9 billion), according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The Action Economics Forecast Survey looked for a deficit of $78.6 billion. The goods deficit widened to $106.5 billion in May, the largest monthly shortfall since March 2025 when imports flooded in ahead of expected tariff increases, from a downwardly revised $82.9 billion in April (previously -$83.7 billion) while the services surplus widened to $28.9 billion in May from an upwardly revised $28.3 billion in April (previously +$27.8 billion).

The real (inflation-adjusted) trade deficit in goods widened to $100.0 billion (2017$) in May from an unrevised $84.3 billion in April. The April/May average is considerably higher than the Q1 average although some of this reflects a decline in exports of nonmonetary gold and other precious metals that are not included in the calculation of GDP. Still, the May report implies that net exports will once again subtract from overall GDP growth in Q2. They subtracted 0.37%-point in Q1.

Exports of goods and services fell 3.2% m/m (+12.6% y/y) in May following an upwardly revised 3.0% monthly increase in April (previously +2.6% m/m). This was the first monthly decline in exports since last December. Goods exports (Census basis) slumped 5.3% m/m (+15.1% y/y) led by outsized declines in exports of nonmonetary gold and other precious metals. In dollar terms, goods exports declined $11.6 billion in May. A $7.5 billion decline in exports of nonmonetary gold and other precious metals accounted for 65% of that decline. However, exports of capital goods ex autos (-4.9% m/m) and nonfood consumer goods ex autos exports (-9.1% m/m) were also very weak. Service exports edged up 0.7% m/m (6.6% y/y) in May following a 0.1% monthly rise in April. Travel service exports rebounded 2.4% m/m in May after having declined in both March and April. Transport exports rose 1.1% m/m in May, their third consecutive monthly gain. Over the past three months, transport exports have increased 6.7%.

Imports of goods and services increased 3.3% m/m (13.3% y/y) in May for their fourth consecutive monthly gain. Over the four months to May, imports rose 11.7%. Goods imports (Census basis) jumped 4.0% m/m (15.3% y/y) in May after a 1.9% monthly gain in April. Imports rose in every major end-use category in May, led by a 10.3% m/m jump in “other” imports, a 6.3% m/m rise in auto imports, a 6.2% m/m increase in nonfood consumer goods imports ex autos, and a 5.8% m/m rise in industrial supplies imports. Service imports increased 0.3% m/m (5.1% y/y) in May, slowing from a 1.6% monthly gain in April. Performance varied meaningfully across end-use categories. Imports of insurance services rose 1.4% m/m, their sixth consecutive monthly rise. Imports of personal and recreational services increased 1.1% m/m in May. Imports of financial services rose 0.6% m/m. By contrast, imported maintenance and repairs services slumped 3.9% m/m, their second monthly decline in the past three months. Imported intellectual property fell 0.3% m/m, their fourth monthly decline in the past five months. Imports of transport services declined 0.4% m/m, their fourth monthly decrease in the past five months.

By country, the goods trade deficit with China widened to $14.5 billion in May from $12.0 billion in April. The trade deficit with the European Union widened to $9.3 billion in May from $7.2 billion in April. The trade deficit with Japan declined to $2.0 billion in May from $2.8 billion in April.

The international trade data can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. Detailed figures on international trade are available in the **USINT** and **USTRADE** databases. The expectations figures are from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in **AS1REPNA**.

260707L40.jpg

260707M40.jpg

- The deficit in goods and services widened to $77.6 billion in May from $54.6 billion in April.
- Exports slumped 3.2% m/m, led by an outsized fall in exports of nonmonetary gold and other precious metals.
- Imports increased by 3.3% m/m with increases in each major end-use category.
- The goods deficit widened to $106.5 billion, while the services surplus widened to $28.9 billion.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

Chicago Purchasing Agents' Index Up Again

New Home Sales Fell

U.S. Personal Income Down

U.S. Personal Income Down

January Unemployment Rates Up in France and Hungary, Down in Norway and Brazil

U.S. Existing Home Sales Fell Again

US GDP Growth Revised Up

US GDP Growth Revised Up