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/020710a.jpg" width="353">
Prices for imported commodities fell much more than expected last month versus May. Consensus estimates were for a 0.2% gain. May figures were little revised.
Petroleum import prices fell for the first month this year. So far in July, the price of Arab Light crude oil has averaged roughly $22.64/bbl versus $22.00 in June.
Nonpetroleum import prices rose slightly for just the third month this year.
Prices for imported capital goods were unchanged and are down 1.1% YTD. Nonauto consumer goods prices were flat for the second consecutive month, down 0.6% YTD and auto prices rose slightly.
Export prices were flat, mostly reflecting a jump in food prices that were offset be sharply lower prices of capital goods.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E807/@E807.HTM">Import/Export Prices (NSA)</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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">Import - All Commodities</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-3.9%</td>
<td>-3.5%</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Petroleum</td>
<td>-6.6%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>-7.9%</td>
<td>-17.2%</td>
<td>66.5%</td>
<td>34.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonpetroleum</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Export - All Commodities</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
OECD Leading Indicators Suggest Positive Growth 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 10, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020710b.jpg" width="353">
Prospects for improved real economic growth recently have improved, according to the OECD Index of Leading Indicators. Since November, the index has been trending higher, although the rate of improvement has slowed somewhat in the last three months
Real economic growth in the Big Seven OECD countries surged 4.4% (AR) in 1Q02. That followed three consecutive negative growth quarters. The surge was due to strong 6.1% growth in the US as well as 5.7% growth in Japan. Growth in the European Union was 0.7% after a 0.5% 4Q decline.
In Japan, industrial production has been climbing steadily since the lows of this past winter. Production gains in Germany also have been positive but moderate.
Inflation in Big Seven countries has been tame, with the Implicit Price deflator up 1.7% y/y. A 2.9% 1Q surge followed a decline in 4Q prices. The CPI in Japan was down 0.9% y/y in May though prices may have showed signs of stabilizing in recent months.

</body>
</html>

Prices for imported commodities fell much more than expected last month versus May. Consensus estimates were for a 0.2% gain. May figures were little revised. Petroleum import prices fell for the first month this year. So far in July, [...]

Import Prices Fell Sharply

<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/020709a.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales jumped 0.7% in the first week of July according to the BTM-UBSW survey. The rise followed a 0.9% decline the prior week.
Early-July sales were 0.4% above the June average.
The leading indicator of chain store sales published by BTM fell in the fourth week of June, reversing all of the gain the prior week.
During the last ten years there has been a 35% correlation between the year-to-year percent change in monthly chain store sales and the change in nonauto retail 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/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">BTM-UBSW (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">7/6/02</th>
<th scope="col">6/29/02</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>415.6</td>
<td>412.9</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Chain store sales jumped 0.7% in the first week of July according to the BTM-UBSW survey. The rise followed a 0.9% decline the prior week. Early-July sales were 0.4% above the June average. The leading indicator of chain store sales [...]

Weekly Chain Store Sales Up in Early July

<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/020708b.jpg" width="353">
Consumer borrowing rose 0.6% in May, quite a bit more than expected. April figures were little revised. Gains during the last three months are roughly equal to last year&#39;s monthly average of $9.0B. 
Revolving credit rose by a modest 0.3% m/m and generally has run at or below last year&#39;s pace except for this past April.
Nonrevolving credit rose 0.7%, up from 0.4% in each of the prior two months. That rate is slightly above the average monthly gain last 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/USECON/@E1/@E103/@E10308/@E10308.HTM">Consumer Credit Outstanding</a></th>
<th scope="col">May m/m</th>
<th scope="col">April m/m</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>$9.5B</td>
<td>$8.6B</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>6.9%</td>
<td>10.2%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Revolving</td>
<td>$2.4B</td>
<td>$4.4B</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>11.5%</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonrevolving</td>
<td>$7.1B</td>
<td>$4.2B</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td>9.2%</td>
<td>8.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Challenger Survey Indicates Layoffs Down 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 8, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020708a.jpg" width="353">
According to Challenger, Gray &amp; Christmas, announced job cuts remained below 100,000 in June for the second month.
The latest figures are an improvement in labor market conditions versus last year when layoffs averaged 160,000 per month.
Layoffs in June did rise slightly versus May, but remain down 24.1% versus last year.

</body>
</html>

Consumer borrowing rose 0.6% in May, quite a bit more than expected. April figures were little revised. Gains during the last three months are roughly equal to last year's monthly average of $9.0B. Revolving credit rose by a modest [...]

Consumer Credit Growth 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/020705a.jpg" width="353">
Payrolls rose somewhat less than expected last month and the modest May gain was revised down.
The modest rise in June payrolls was accompanied by a sharp 364,000 drop (-0.7% y/y) in household employment which pushed the unemployment rate up as expected. The labor force fell 293,000 (0.7% y/y).
Amongst industries, factory sector jobs fell and are down 11.3% from the peak in early 1998. Construction jobs rose in June but are down 1.2% so far this year. Jobs in service producing industries ticked up and the year-to-date gain is a meager 0.2%.
The one-month diffusion index for nonfarm payrolls fell to 49.1, up versus the November low of 39.3. The level still suggests little or no employment growth near term. 
The index of aggregate hours worked (employment times hours worked) rose in June but was up just slightly in 2Q versus the 1Q average. 
Average hourly earnings rose slightly more than expected following a downwardly revised May gain.
The employment figures for nonfarm payrolls are based on reports provided to the US Labor Department by businesses, while the figures from which the unemployment rate is derived are based on a survey of US households.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EB/@EB01/@EB01.HTM">Employment</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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">Payroll Employment</td>
<td>36,000</td>
<td>24,000</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>-23,000</td>
<td>-27,000</td>
<td>-5.6%</td>
<td>-4.2%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Average Weekly Hours</td>
<td>34.3</td>
<td>34.2</td>
<td>34.2</td>
<td>34.2</td>
<td>34.4</td>
<td>34.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Average Hourly Earnings</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Payrolls rose somewhat less than expected last month and the modest May gain was revised down. The modest rise in June payrolls was accompanied by a sharp 364,000 drop (-0.7% y/y) in household employment which pushed the unemployment [...]

June Payrolls Weak, Jobless Rate 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/020703a.jpg" width="353">
Light vehicle sales rose 5.2% last month versus May. The rise in sales was very slightly more than expected following a 9.7% decline in May. Vehicle sales in 2Q rose 1.2% from 1Q to an average of 16.50M units.
Sales of domestically built cars and trucks rose 4.2% m/m. 2Q sales of domestics rose 2.2% from the 1Q average.
Imported vehicle sales rose 9.4% vs. May. Sales of imports in 2Q fell 3.0% from the 1Q average.
Imports captured 19.6% of the US light vehicle market in 2Q02 versus 20.4% in 1Q and 17.8% last year.
Sales of cars (-5.5% y/y) and light trucks (-3.6% y/y) both rose last month versus May. 

<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">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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>16.48</td>
<td>15.67</td>
<td>-4.5%</td>
<td>17.21</td>
<td>17.40</td>
<td>16.95</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Domestic</td>
<td>13.19</td>
<td>12.67</td>
<td>-7.2%</td>
<td>14.15</td>
<td>14.58</td>
<td>14.47</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Imported</td>
<td>3.29</td>
<td>3.00</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
<td>3.06</td>
<td>2.82</td>
<td>2.48</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Claims for Jobless Insurance Down 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 3, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020703b.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance fell about as expected in the latest week. The prior week&#39;s level was revised up slightly.
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance rose slightly from the prior week&#39;s level which fell sharply and was revised down.
The four-week moving average of initial claims was little changed at 392,000 (-1.8% y/y). 
The insured rate of unemployment was stable at 2.9% for the fourth consecutive week.

<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">6/29/02</th>
<th scope="col">6/22/02</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>382.0</td>
<td>393.0</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td>405.8</td>
<td>299.8</td>
<td>297.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>3,699</td>
<td>23.3%</td>
<td>3,021</td>
<td>2,114</td>
<td>2,186</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
ISM Nonmanufacturing Index Down 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 3, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020703c.jpg" width="353">
The Institute for Supply Management business activity index of the nonmanufacturing sector fell slightly more than expected last month following strength the month prior. 
The overall index has remained above 50, the dividing line for expansion and contraction, since February.
Of the seasonally adjusted subgroups, new orders were about unchanged, employment fell and imports rose. The not seasonally adjusted index of export orders was quite strong. 
The not seasonally adjusted index of prices fell for the second consecutive month. 
Business activity for the nonmanufacturing sector is a question separate from the subgroups mentioned above. In contrast, the NAPM manufacturing sector composite index weights the components. 
During the last four years, there has been a 43% 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">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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>57.2</td>
<td>60.1</td>
<td>52.4</td>
<td>49.0</td>
<td>59.2</td>
<td>59.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Factory Inventories Fell Again 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 3, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020703d.jpg" width="353">
Manufacturing inventories fell for the sixteenth consecutive month in May. April&#39;s decline was revised slightly deeper and figures back to 1999 also were revised.
Inventory decumulation continued strong across the board, notably in the metals industries. Inventories of computers rose for the third month this year. Furniture &amp; related products inventories rose after months of sharp decline since late 2000. 
Shipments rose slightly (-3.2% y/y) following two months of sharp 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">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</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>-0.3%</td>
<td>-8.6%</td>
<td>-8.0%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Light vehicle sales rose 5.2% last month versus May. The rise in sales was very slightly more than expected following a 9.7% decline in May. Vehicle sales in 2Q rose 1.2% from 1Q to an average of 16.50M units. Sales of domestically [...]

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Recover

<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/020702a.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales fell 0.9% in the last full week of June according to the BTM-UBSW survey. The decline was the first in five weeks.
June sales rose 2.0% from the May average.
The leading indicator of chain store sales published by BTM rose in the third week of June and has resumed the upward move begun this past April.
During the last ten years there has been a 40% correlation between the year-to-year percent change in monthly chain store sales and the change in general merchandise store 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/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">BTM-UBSW (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">6/29/02</th>
<th scope="col">6/22/02</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>412.9</td>
<td>416.7</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Chain store sales fell 0.9% in the last full week of June according to the BTM-UBSW survey. The decline was the first in five weeks. June sales rose 2.0% from the May average. The leading indicator of chain store sales published by [...]

Weekly Chain Store 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/020701a.jpg" width="353">
The ISM Composite Index of manufacturing sector activity rose slightly more than expected last month. Consensus expectations were for a slight decline to 55.5. 
Higher production, employment and vendor performance (slower deliveries) fueled the gain in the composite index to its highest level since February 2000.
The new orders index fell but has remained in a relatively high range since earlier this year.
Inflation pressure rose sharply as the percentage of companies reporting lower prices fell to the lowest since August 2000. The percentage of companies reporting higher prices rose to the highest since April 2000.
Over the last twenty years there has been a 66% correlation between the ISM Composite Index and quarterly growth in chained GDP.

<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">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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>56.2</td>
<td>55.7</td>
<td>44.3</td>
<td>43.9</td>
<td>51.6</td>
<td>54.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid Index</td>
<td>65.5</td>
<td>63.0</td>
<td>42.8</td>
<td>43.0</td>
<td>64.8</td>
<td>54.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Construction Spending Down in May 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 1, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020701b.jpg" width="353">
The value of construction put in place fell unexpectedly in May. A slight gain had been expected. It was the second decline in three months following hefty gains in January and February. Figures were revised back to 1999. Growth in 2001 was lowered substantially in all sectors.
Residential building fell for the first month since October. Activity is up 7.4% versus last year and has been strongest in the multi-unit sector. 
Nonresidential building activity fell sharply for the third month this year, continuing a trend of decline that began last year. Industrial and office building has fallen notably but has been offset somewhat by gains in the hospital and educational areas.
Spending by governments rose for the fourth month this year driven by gains in the education and military sectors.

<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">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</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>-0.7%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>8.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Residential</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>11.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonresidential</td>
<td>-3.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-14.4%</td>
<td>-3.1%</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Public</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>10.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The ISM Composite Index of manufacturing sector activity rose slightly more than expected last month. Consensus expectations were for a slight decline to 55.5. Higher production, employment and vendor performance (slower deliveries) [...]

ISM Index Rose Further

<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/020628a.jpg" width="353">
Personal income rose as expected last month following a slight downward revision to April. Personal consumption expenditures fell as expected. April&#39;s gain was unrevised. 
Wage and salary disbursements rose 0.4% (1.9% y/y) in May, the strongest monthly increase this year, following no change in April. 
Personal spending fell due to lower spending on both durable and nondurable goods. Unit sales of light vehicles fell 9.5% m/m to 15.6M. Spending on services rose 0.7% (5.2% y/y).
Disposable income rose 0.3% (5.8% y/y), the same as in April. 
The PCE price deflator fell (1.0% y/y) for the first month since December. Less food and energy the price deflator also fell but more slightly (1.6% y/y) following an unrevised 0.2% April increase.

<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">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</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>0.3%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Personal Consumption</td>
<td>-0.1%</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>3.1%</td>
<td>2.8%</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>0.4%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Consumer Sentiment Better Than Expected 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> June 28, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020628b.jpg" width="353">
The June reading of Consumer Sentiment from the University of Michigan came in higher than suggested by a lower reading in mid-June. A full-month figure of 90.8 had been expected.
Nevertheless, sentiment remained near the low end of 90.7-96.9 range it has fluctuated in this year.
Indexes of both expectations and current conditions fell.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.
During the past five years there has been a 37% 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">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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>92.4</td>
<td>96.9</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>89.2</td>
<td>107.6</td>
<td>105.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Chicago Purchasing Agents' Index Down 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> June 28, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020628c.jpg" width="353">
The Chicago Purchasing Manager&#146;s Index of Business activity fell slightly more than expected in June. Nevertheless, the index remained at its second highest level of the year. 
The index of new orders fell, but production, inventories and employment rose. 
The index of vendor performance fell, indicating that supplier delivery speeds quickened after a sharp slowing in May. 
The prices paid index was roughly unchanged. 

<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">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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>58.2</td>
<td>60.8</td>
<td>42.6</td>
<td>41.4</td>
<td>51.8</td>
<td>56.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid</td>
<td>58.2</td>
<td>58.3</td>
<td>50.9</td>
<td>50.5</td>
<td>65.6</td>
<td>57.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Personal income rose as expected last month following a slight downward revision to April. Personal consumption expenditures fell as expected. April's gain was unrevised. Wage and salary disbursements rose 0.4% (1.9% y/y) in May, the [...]

Personal Income Up, Spending Down

Retail gasoline price still well above pre-conflict level and now rising again

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

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

Service Health

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

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Featured Data Additions

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Sandy Batten

260715J5.jpg

260715K5.jpg

The Producer Price Index for final demand fell 0.3% m/m (+5.5% y/y) in June following a downwardly revised 0.6% (6.0%y/y) gain in May (previously 1.1% m/m, 6.5% y/y) according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This was the first monthly decline in the headline index since August 2025 and the largest decline since April 2025. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected an unchanged reading in June. Producer prices excluding food, energy and trade services edged up 0.1% m/m (+5.1% y/y) in June after having jumped 0.8% m/m (5.1% y/y) in May. The PPI excluding food and energy (the previous core index) rose 0.2% m/m (4.7% y/y) in June versus a 0.1% m/m (4.6% y/y) increase in May. A 0.1% m/m increase was expected.

The June decline in the index for final demand was attributable to a 1.4% m/m decline (+7.9% y/y) in prices for final demand goods following a 2.3% monthly rise in May. The index for final demand services increased 0.2% m/m (4.6% y/y) in June after a 0.1% monthly decline in May.

The 1.4% m/m decline in final demand goods prices was the largest since July 2022. Leading the decline in June, prices for final demand energy dropped 6.4% m/m. A 12.0% m/m decline in gasoline prices accounted for two-thirds of the decline in final demand goods prices in June. The index for final demand foods moved down 0.6% m/m, the first monthly decline in three months. Conversely, prices for final demand goods less food and energy increased 0.2% m/m (+5.1% y/y). The indexes for diesel fuel, jet fuel, fresh vegetables (except potatoes), crude petroleum, and thermoplastic resins and materials fell. In contrast, prices for plastic products advanced 1.6% m/m. The indexes for residential electric power and for potatoes also increased.

The index for final demand services rose 0.2% m/m (4.6% y/y) in June after falling 0.1% m/m in May. Over 60% of the advance in June can be attributed to margins for final demand trade services, which moved up 0.4% m/m after a 2.3% m/m decline in May. (Trade indexes measure changes in margins received by wholesalers and retailers.) Prices for final demand services less trade, transportation, and warehousing increased 0.1% m/m. Conversely, the index for final demand transportation and warehousing services declined 0.1% m/m. The indexes for securities brokerage, dealing, and investment advice; furniture retailing; apparel, jewelry, footwear, and accessories retailing; loan services (partial); and inpatient care rose. In contrast, margins for machinery and vehicle wholesaling declined 8.4%. The indexes for food and alcohol wholesaling and for deposit services (partial) also fell.

Final demand construction costs edged up 0.1% m/m (3.5% y/y) in June, the same monthly increase as in May. Construction prices for private capital investment also edged up 0.1% (3.4% y/y) in June, the same monthly gain as in May.

Prices for intermediate demand processed goods fell 1.2% m/m (+11.1% y/y) in June, the first monthly decline since October 2025 and the largest monthly decline since December 2022. Processed energy goods prices slumped 7.3% m/m, the first monthly decline since January. Processed foods prices edged up 0.1% m/m following a 0.6% m/m jump in May. Prices of processed goods excluding foods and energy rose 0.6% m/m, down markedly from 1.7% monthly gains in both April and May.

The PPI data are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. Further detail is contained in **PPI** and **PPIR**. The expectations figures are available in the **AS1REPNA** database.

260715L5.jpg

260715M5.jpg

- Led by a 6.4% m/m decline in energy prices, the PPI for final demand fell 0.3% m/m in June.
- Goods prices fell 1.4% m/m, the first monthly decline since January, while services prices rose 0.2% m/m.
- Excluding food, energy and trade margins, the new core measure edged up 0.1% m/m while the old core (excluding just food and energy) rose 0.2% m/m in June.

U.S. Producer Prices Fell in June

Michael J. Moran

260714A.jpg

260714B.jpg

Most analysts were looking for a dip in the CPI because of a likely retreat in gasoline prices, but the published decline of 0.4% in the headline index was noticeably softer than the consensus estimate of -0.1%. Gasoline prices did not disappoint, with a drop of 9.7% offsetting approximately one-quarter of the cumulative surge in the prior three months. Prices of fuel oil fell almost as much as gasoline prices, and electricity charges contributed to the softness with a decline of 1.0%. The price of natural gas services was the only major energy item to increase in June (0.5%). All told, the energy component of the CPI fell 5.7% after climbing 19.6% in the prior three months.

The drop in energy prices was notable, but the core component provided a bigger surprise by posting a decline, the first since a series of three consecutive decreases during the pandemic. Before the pandemic-related retreat, the core component fell only twice from 1990 to 2019. The drop in June was minuscule (-0.02%), but the fact that it carried a minus sign was striking.

Both the goods and services components of the core index contributed to the restraint. Prices of goods other than food and energy fell 0.1%. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes six key subcategories of core goods, and five of them fell in June. Apparel prices stood out with a decline of 0.6%. Prices of core services were nearly unchanged at 0.03%, restrained by declines in medical services and motor vehicle insurance. Airfares, which showed upward pressure from rising fuel prices in the prior three months, posted a nondescript increase of 0.2%. The modest increase in the prices of core services led to a dip in the 12-month average increase after stepping up in April and May. The trend in core goods prices continued its gradual deceleration (chart, below right).

Food prices in June rose 0.2%, a reading comfortably within the range of the past few years.

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

260714C.jpg

260714D.jpg

- The energy component retraced a portion of its surge in the prior three months.
- Prices excluding food and energy provided a surprise by posting a rare decline.

June CPI: Cooling Energy Prices and a Restrained Core Component

Winnie Tapasanun

260714T36.jpg

260714U36.jpg

The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index rose to 97.4 in June, the highest level since February, after a 0.6-point decline to 95.3 in May, according to the Small Business Economic Trends survey conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business. The index was slightly below its 52-year average of 98.0 for the fourth consecutive month and down from a peak of 105.1 in December 2024, albeit above a low of 88.5 in March 2024. Seven of the 10 index components rose, while three fell. Meanwhile, the NFIB Small Business Uncertainty Index edged down to 89 in June following a three-point increase to 91 in May, remaining well above its historical average of 68. The index was below its record high of 110 in October 2024 but above its recent low of 84 in December 2025 and a low of 65 in November 2023.

The outlook for business conditions in the next six months remained positive for the 20th straight month in the latest survey. The net balance of respondents expecting the economy to improve advanced to 13% in June, a four-month high, following a one-point decline to 3% in May; these readings were far below a high of 52% in December 2024 but significantly above a record low of -61% in June 2022. Expected real sales climbed to a net 9% in June, a five-month high, from 1% in May; the latest figure was below a high of 22% in December 2024 but above a low of -18% in August 2024. A net -4% of respondents reported higher nominal sales in the past three months, up from -5% in May and marking the highest reading in four months; the latest result remained above a low of -20% in October 2024 but below the recent positive reading of 1% in February and a peak of 9% in June 2021.

Plans to expand the business inched up to 8% in June from 7% in May and April; the latest figure was down from a high of 20% in December 2024 but up from a low of 2% in March 2023. Plans to make capital outlays rebounded to 20% in June from 16% in May; these numbers were still below a high of 28% in November 2024 and a peak of 31% in October 2021. Expected credit conditions slipped to -5% in June, a three-month low, from -3% in May; this result was slightly below a high of -2% in December 2024 but above a low of -11% in November 2023. Meanwhile, a net 0% of respondents viewed current inventory stocks as “too low” in June, up from -4% in May and matching the highest reading since August 2025 (also 0%); the positive reading of 1% was recorded in May 2025.

On the labor front, 51% of respondents reported that qualified workers to fill job openings were hard to find in June, up from 46% in May and registering the highest level since September 2024. These numbers were above a low of 43% in August 2025 but below a high of 56% in August 2024 and a peak of 62% in September 2021. A net 11% planned to increase employment in June, up from 9% in May; it matched a low of 11% in March 2024 but remained below its recent high of 19% in November 2025 and a peak of 32% in August 2021. Notably, 32% reported positions not able to be filled in June, up from 29% in May (the lowest level since May 2020); these figures remained below a high of 51% in May 2022.

Overall earnings trends had remained in negative territory since December 2019. The measure fell to -20% in June, the lowest level in three months, following a four-point increase to -15% in May. These readings were below the most recent high of -14% in February and a high of -5% in June 2021 but above a low of -37% in August 2024,

On the pricing front, actual and expected selling prices remained at an inflationary level, indicating continued inflationary pressures. The net percent of firms raising their average selling prices rose to 38% in June, the highest reading since February 2023, after a six-point increase to 36% in May. The latest reading was up from a low of 20% in August 2024 but well below a peak of 66% in March 2022. The percentage planning to raise prices eased to a still-elevated 32% in June following a seven-point rise to 34% in May (the highest level since November 2023); these readings remained above a low of 21% in April 2023.

Wage inflation remained relatively high in the June survey. A net 28% of respondents raised compensation during the last three months, down from 31% in May and marking the lowest since November 2025. It was also below a high of 46% in February 2023 and a peak of 50% in January 2022. A net 17% of firms planned to raise worker compensation in the next three months, slightly down from 18% in May and matching the lowest reading since July 2025; this remained below highs of 28% in November 2024, 30% in November 2023, and 32% in October 2022.

Inflation was cited as the single most important problem facing small businesses, as reported by 21% of NFIB members in June, up from 18% in May and representing the highest since October 2024; these readings were well below a peak of 37% in July 2022. Taxes ranked second as the next most important problem (alongside labor quality), as reported by 19% of respondents in June, unchanged from May. Labor quality also remained a key challenge for small businesses, as reported by 19% of respondents in June—the highest since December—compared with 13% in May (the lowest level since December 2016). Other concerns (in June vs. May) included labor costs (8% vs. 14%), government requirements (8% vs. 10%), insurance cost/availability (8% vs. 8%), poor sales (7% vs. 7%), and competition from large businesses (5% vs. 6%).

According to the Small Business Administration, there are 33 million small businesses in the United States, which employ 62 million workers. The NFIB surveys anywhere from 500 to 2000 respondents each month and the typical firm employs 10 people and reports gross sales of about $500,000 a year. The NFIB figures can be found in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database.

260714V36.jpg

260714W36.jpg

- Uncertainty Idx down 2 pts. to 89, remaining well above the historical avg. of 68.
- Expectations for economy up 10 pts. to 13%, a four-month high.
- Expected real sales up 8 pts. to 9%, a five-month high.
- Plans to expand business up 1 pt. to 8%, highest in three mths.
- Firms raising avg. selling prices up 2 pts. to 38%, highest since Feb. ’23.
- Top three business concerns: inflation (21%), taxes (19%), and labor quality (19%).

U.S. NFIB Small Business Optimism Rebounds in June to a Four-Month High

Robert Brusca

260714E.jpg

Industrial production in Japan fell by 0.5% in May after rising by 0.7% in April and declining by 0.2% in March. Manufacturing output rose by 0.1% in May after rising by 0.4% in April and declining by 0.3% in March. Total industrial output shows a 0.7% gain over 12 months, a 3.4% annual rate gain over six months, and zero change in output over three months. For manufacturing, 12-month output is up 0.7%; over six months, output is up at a 6.1% annual rate; and over three months, output is up by 0.8% at an annual rate.

These trends show that output continues to grow for manufacturing as well for total industry, but not by a great margin. In fact, there are still a number of industries still fighting off negative trends, such as textiles, where output falls over three months, six months, and 12 months, as well as investment goods and mining, both of which show declines over three months, six months and 12 months. One year ago, all of these sectors were showing year-over-year declines except for manufacturing, which was up by 0.5% over 12 months. Manufacturing output is now up by 0.7% year-over-year, with consumer goods up by 1.8%, intermediate goods output up by 2%, and investment goods falling by 3%. Japan is currently trying to fight off a legacy of weakness. The strength of the rebound is being borne by consumer goods and intermediate goods, with investment goods undergoing significant contractive effects.

Manufacturing is showing gains on all three sequential horizons. Utilities output is showing growth on each horizon, and actually shows gathering strength, rising by 0.9% over 12 months, at a 1.4% annual rate over six months, and at a very strong 7.9% annual rate over three months.

In the quarter-to-date (QTD) basis, most of these sectors are losing the battle against weakness, with most industry or sectors showing declines two months into the new quarter. Overall output declines at a 0.2% annual rate. Manufacturing output falls at a 2.2% annual rate, intermediate goods output falls at a 0.2% annual rate, and investment goods output falls at a 7.2% annual rate. The only exception is consumer goods output, which is rising at a solid 5.3% annual rate, but that's not strong enough to drag all of industrial output or even manufacturing into the plus column.

Manufacturing output currently is at about 87.7% of its past peak. Activity in electric and gas utilities are at 90.4% of their past peak, while mining is only at 59.6% of its past peak of activity. Comparing levels of output to where they were in January 2020, manufacturing is at 94% of that value, with total industry also at 94% of that value. Consumer goods are at 98% of that value, intermediate goods at 92%, and investment goods at 93%. Mining is only at 74% of its January 2020 value, while electric and gas utilities have moved beyond the January 2020 level and are 3.3% higher than they were and early 2020.

Since 2020, it has been a relatively difficult time for the global economy. The Japanese statistics show only one sector that has managed to create positive growth compared to its level in January 2020. The current month is a mix of plus-and-minus activity changes. Sequential trends generally show more positives than negatives, but there are still a lot of negatives in train that keep Japanese manufacturing from reaching clearly solid footing. When the Strait of Hormuz opened, it appeared that Japan would be in a position to build on its recovery, but now, with the failed peace agreement and failed ceasefire, the strait once again has been closed and the outlook is shrouded in negativity.

260714.jpg

Japan

Japan’s IP Is Fighting Off Weak Trends

Industrial output in Norway fell by 1% in May after rising by 0.6 in April and falling by 1.1% in March. The seesaw act for output continues. Over broader horizons, however, output is falling. It falls by 0.1% over 12 months, falls at a 1.1% annual rate over six months, and falls at a 6.2% annual rate over three months, giving us a clear sequential trend toward falling and decelerating output. Utilities output has chaotic trends, as do mining and quarrying; however, manufacturing shows a clear trend toward output acceleration, with a 2.1% output increase over 12 months, a 2.6% annual rate rise over six months, and a 9% annual rate increase over three months.

Manufacturing sectors show consumer goods output increasing in May, also showing secular acceleration from 12 months to six months to three months. Durable goods, however, are the fly in the ointment, with output up 2.2% over 12 months, accelerating over six months, and then dropping at a 20.4% annual rate over three months. However, consumer nondurables show growth and acceleration, with a 12-month gain of 1.8%, rising to a 3.6% annual rate increase over six months and a 10.9% annual rate increase over three months. Intermediate goods output trends return to more difficult times and show declines over 12 months, six months, and three months, but not a clear path of deceleration. Capital goods output is up 5.4% over 12 months and at an 8.5% annual rate over three months, but there is an intervening soft spot with output up at only a 3.4% annual rate over six months.

Against this background, inflation in Norway showed solid increases in May, rising by 0.2% overall and by 0.3% for the core HICP. However, sequentially inflation gains 3% over 12 months, rises at a 3.8% annual rate over six months, and then backs down to a 1.2% annual rate over three months. The core HICP is steadier, with a 3.4% gain over 12 months, rising to a 3.8% annual rate over six months, and then backing down to 3.2% at an annual rate over three months. That's a set of growth rates that are more stable than either accelerating or decelerating.

In the quarter-to-date (QTD) basis, industrial production is falling 4.6%; this is two months into the second quarter. On the other hand, manufacturing output is rising QTD at a 4.9% annual rate, with consumer nondurables showing strong positive growth along with intermediate goods output. There is a solid gain of 3.1% at an annual rate from capital goods. The QTD inflation trends remain somewhat mixed, with a weak headline showing a 1.6% annual rate, against a core HICP at a 3.4% annual rate rise, the latter gain being well in step with its sequential results.

The far right-hand column compares industrial production over the broad period from just before COVID (in January 2020) looking at the ratio of the level of output in May 2026 to its index value in January 2020. Remember that IP data are inflation-adjusted, so these are real data. Over this span, industrial production excluding construction is up by approximately 10%, with utilities output up at about 21%, mining and quarrying up about 5%, and manufacturing up a little more than 7%. This is a 5½-year period. Consumer goods output is up by 2.7%, led by consumer nondurables which rise 4.1% on the period and against durable goods output where there is a decline of about 13% on that timeline. Intermediate goods output drops slightly on the timeline by less than half a percentage point, while capital goods output is up at a solid and strong 23% gain. Looking at prices over the same period, the headline HICP is higher by 27% while the core is higher by 24%.

The weakened output shows the stresses and strains of the period, with weak gains in place over the last 5½ years and with the consumer showing considerable wear and tear, leaving consumer goods output lower on balance over this 5½-year span. It hasn't been such a bad time for capital goods, where output rose by 23% over the period. Inflation got out-of-the-box and grew quite strongly. The headline HICP grew by 27% since January 2020, a duration of time during which, sticking to its target, would have implied a gain in the price level of only 11.5%.

**Ongoing overshooting**
Even now central banks are trying to decide how to come to grips with the inflation pressures from that. Pressures continue to linger and threaten the economies. Of course, there are some new factors in place, but that's the nature of inflation: if it's not one thing, it's something else. And failing to respond to the one thing means that you're going to get hit even worse when it becomes something else. This is the lesson the central banks haven't learned during this period. 

**Have central banks learned their lesson?**
Noting that inflation is over target and then forecasting that it's going to come back down to target over some period ahead puts the inflation performance at risk to whatever happens between now and the end of that period ‘ahead.’ If that forecast isn't perfectly right and if there's something else that disturbs the path of prices, what will happen is that an inflation that is already over the top of the target will push even farther over the top of the target and the dilemma faced by the central bank will become even worse. This is why kicking the can down the road generally is not a very good strategy, but it's one that virtually all the central banks pursued in the wake of COVID. So, will central bankers come to see inflation that is here and now as a here-and-now problem to be addressed here and now, or as a candidate for tomorrow land? The ECB seems to be changing, and the Fed has formed task forces. What about Norway and the rest of the world? Norway did push its target rate up as the ECB hiked. But what is its plan?