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/020503a.jpg" width="353">
The unemployment rate surged to the highest level since August 1994. Household employment rose a modest 82,000 (-1.1% y/y) but the labor force jumped 565,000 (0.6% y/y).
Further indication of labor market weakness was the less than expected rise in nonfarm payrolls and the downward revision to March&#39;s previously reported gain.
Downward revisions to March employment were across the board in the service producing industries, but were large for basic services.
A glimmer of improvement was the rise in the one-month diffusion index for nonfarm payrolls. This breadth of change measure rose to 50.7, the first month above 50 since last March.
Factory sector jobs continued to fall, though job losses were most notable in the nondurable as well as transportation industries. The one month diffusion index for the factory sector improved to 47.1%, its highest level since July 2000.
Construction sector jobs fell for the third month this year. 
Employment in the service sector rose 134,000 (0.1% m/m) due to small increases in several industries. 
The index of aggregate hours worked (employment times hours worked) fell 0.2% and started 2Q below the 1Q average. 
Average hourly earnings rose an expected 0.1% and March was unrevised.
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">April</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</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>43,000</td>
<td>-21,000</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>-19,000</td>
<td>-38,000</td>
<td>-6.6%</td>
<td>-4.2%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Average Weekly Hours</td>
<td>34.1</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>0.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
ISM Nonmanufacturing Index Again Falls Slightly 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> May 3, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020503b.jpg" width="353">
The Institute for Supply Management business activity index of the nonmanufacturing sector fell to the low end of expectations last month. 
New orders, employment and imports all rose. The not seasonally adjusted price index rose for the fourth month in a row to its highest level since last May. 
Business activity for the nonmanufacturing sector is a question separate from the components mentioned above. In contrast, the NAPM manufacturing sector composite index weights the components. 
During the last four years, there has been a 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">April</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</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>55.3</td>
<td>57.3</td>
<td>47.8</td>
<td>49.0</td>
<td>59.2</td>
<td>59.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The unemployment rate surged to the highest level since August 1994. Household employment rose a modest 82,000 (-1.1% y/y) but the labor force jumped 565,000 (0.6% y/y). Further indication of labor market weakness was the less than [...]

April Job Rise Too Small to Keep Unemployment Rate from Rising

<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/020502a.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance fell less than expected in the latest week. The prior week&#39;s level was revised up slightly. The latest figure continues to reflect a small number of filings for extended benefits. 
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance rose, reflecting firms&#39; hesitancy to hire, after rising the week prior which was revised down.
The four-week moving average of claims fell to 425,750. 
The insured rate of unemployment was unchanged at 2.9%.

<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">04/27/02</th>
<th scope="col">04/20/02</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>418.0</td>
<td>428.0</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>405.8</td>
<td>299.8</td>
<td>297.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>3,775</td>
<td>36.3%</td>
<td>3,021</td>
<td>2,114</td>
<td>2,186</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Factory Inventories Fall Again 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> May 2, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020502b.jpg" width="353">
Manufacturing inventories fell for the fourteenth consecutive month in March. February decumulation was revised slightly deeper. In percentage terms, the recent inventory correction by far sets a record.
Inventory decumulation continued strong across industries. Only inventories of furniture &amp; related products were unchanged and miscellaneous durable goods rose for the second month. 
Shipments rose 0.7% (-6.3% y/y), the fourth gain in six months. 
Durable goods orders were little revised, down 0.5%.

<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">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Mfg Inventories</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-8.6%</td>
<td>-7.5%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Initial claims for unemployment insurance fell less than expected in the latest week. The prior week's level was revised up slightly. The latest figure continues to reflect a small number of filings for extended benefits. Continuing [...]

Initial Jobless Insurance Claims 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/020501a.jpg" width="353">
The ISM Composite Index of manufacturing sector activity fell slightly more than expected last month. Consensus expectations were for an index reading of 55.0. The decline was in line with the moderate fall in the Chicago Purchasing agents&#39; index reported yesterday. 
The components of the ISM index were mixed. New orders and employment fell while production, inventories and supplier deliveries rose. 
Inflation pressure rose sharply, the price index moving to its highest level since January 2001.
Over the last twenty years there has been a 75% correlation between the ISM Composite Index and 3-month growth in factory production.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EF/@EF02/@EF02.HTM">ISM Manufacturing Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</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>53.9</td>
<td>55.6</td>
<td>43.2</td>
<td>43.9</td>
<td>51.6</td>
<td>54.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid Index</td>
<td>60.3</td>
<td>51.9</td>
<td>48.0</td>
<td>43.0</td>
<td>64.8</td>
<td>54.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Construction Spending Down in March 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> May 1, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020501b.jpg" width="353">
The value of construction put in place fell unexpectedly in March. The February gain was revised down due to lowered figures for residential and nonresidential building.
Residential building rose for the fourth consecutive month, though the March gain was mild compared to huge gains in January and February. 
In the nonresidential sector, industrial building continued to tumble, office building rose for the first month in five and hospital construction was strong.
Spending by governments fell for the first month in six (February was revised up) due to across the board declines.

<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">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>8.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Residential</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>11.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonresidential</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>-4.8%</td>
<td>-19.5%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>8.0%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Public</td>
<td>-5.6%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>10.9%</td>
<td>11.0%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>10.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The ISM Composite Index of manufacturing sector activity fell slightly more than expected last month. Consensus expectations were for an index reading of 55.0. The decline was in line with the moderate fall in the Chicago Purchasing [...]

ISM Index Down Slightly

<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/020430a.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales in the latest week retraced all of their surge the prior period, falling 1.7% according to BTM-UBSW.
April sales, with only one partial week to go, are 1.0% below the March average.
During the last ten years there has been a 20% correlation between the monthly percent change in chain store sales and the change in consumer confidence.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">BTM-UBSW (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">4/27/02</th>
<th scope="col">4/20/02</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>399.3</td>
<td>406.3</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Consumer Confidence Down Slightly 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 30, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020430b.jpg" width="353">
The Conference Board&#146;s Index of Consumer Confidence fell slightly in April, about as expected. March&#39;s level was little revised 
The 1.7% m/m decline in the Conference Board measure was in line with modest drop in the University of Michigan Consumer sentiment survey. 
The decline in confidence reflected a slight drop in consumer expectations and a moderate drop in the reading regarding the present situation. 
The Conference Board&#39;s survey is conducted by a mailed questionnaire to 5,000 households and about 3,500 typically respond.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EF/@EF14/@EF1401/@EF1401.HTM">Conference Board</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>108.8</td>
<td>110.7</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>106.6</td>
<td>139.0</td>
<td>135.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Chicago Purchasing Agents' Index Fell 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 30, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020430c.jpg" width="353">
The Chicago Purchasing Manager&#146;s Index of Business activity fell as expected in April, but remained at a level consistent with positive factory sector growth. 
Indexes of new orders, inventories and production fell. 
The prices paid index rose to the highest level since May of last year. The vendor delivery speed index rose slightly. 

<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">April</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</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>54.7</td>
<td>55.7</td>
<td>39.2</td>
<td>41.4</td>
<td>51.8</td>
<td>56.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid</td>
<td>55.4</td>
<td>51.2</td>
<td>55.2</td>
<td>50.5</td>
<td>65.6</td>
<td>57.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Chain store sales in the latest week retraced all of their surge the prior period, falling 1.7% according to BTM-UBSW. April sales, with only one partial week to go, are 1.0% below the March average. During the last ten years there [...]

Chain Store Sales Disappointing

<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/020429a.jpg" width="353">
Personal income and spending in March rose as expected. The gains followed strong increases in February that were little revised. 
Wage and salary disbursements rose 0.2% (1.8% y/y) in March following a 0.4% gain the month earlier. 
Personal spending rose moderately, up 5.0% (AR) for the quarter. PCE in chained dollars rose 3.5% in 1Q. 
Disposable income rose 0.5% (4.7% y/y) in March following a 0.7% February gain. 
The PCE price deflator rose 0.2%, its strongest gain since October. Less food and energy the price deflator rose 0.1% for the third straight month.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E7/@E711/@E71102/@E71102.HTM">Disposition of Personal Income</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Personal Income</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Personal Consumption</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Savings Rate</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">PCE Price Deflator</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Personal income and spending in March rose as expected. The gains followed strong increases in February that were little revised. Wage and salary disbursements rose 0.2% (1.8% y/y) in March following a 0.4% gain the month earlier. [...]

Personal Income and Spending 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/020426a.jpg" width="353">
GDP surged more than expected last quarter owing to a reduced rate of inventory liquidation and surprising resiliency in domestic final demand.
The rate of inventory liquidation eased to $36.2B from $119.3B, adding 3.1 percentage points to GDP growth. Production must be raised in order to slow the rate of inventory decline if demand remains high.
Nevertheless, trade sector deterioration sapped considerably from GDP growth as exports, up 6.8% (AR), lagged imports which rose 15.5%. Service imports surged. 
Domestic final demand growth was more resilient than expected, rising at about the same rate as in 4Q. Real PCE rose 3.5% (AR) versus 6.1% in 4Q. Residential investment surged 15.7% after a 4Q decline and fixed capital investment declined 0.5%, the most moderate rate of decline in six quarters. 
Inflation was tame rising at half the rate expected by Consensus. The PCE deflator rose 0.6% while fixed investment prices fell.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E7/@E701/@E701.HTM">Chained &#39;96 $, % AR</a></th>
<th scope="col">1Q &#39;02 (Advance)</th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;01</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">GDP</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Inventory Effect</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>-2.2%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Final Sales</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Trade Effect</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Domestic Final Demand</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Chained GDP Price Deflator</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Consumer Sentiment Fell Further 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 26, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020426b.jpg" width="353">
The April reading of Consumer Sentiment from the University of Michigan fell unexpectedly versus March.
Deterioration in sentiment apparently continued throughout the month.
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">April</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</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>93.0</td>
<td>95.7</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>89.2</td>
<td>107.6</td>
<td>105.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

GDP surged more than expected last quarter owing to a reduced rate of inventory liquidation and surprising resiliency in domestic final demand. The rate of inventory liquidation eased to $36.2B from $119.3B, adding 3.1 percentage [...]

1Q GDP Stronger Than Expected

<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/020425a.jpg" width="353">
The employment cost index rose as expected last quarter. This 1Q report was virtually identical in substance to the 4Q report: higher unemployment rates have constrained growth in wages and benefits.
Quarterly gains in compensation peaked in early 2000 when benefits rose 1.9% and wages &amp; salaries rose 1.1%. Since then, quarterly gains in benefit costs have been stable in the 1.1-1.4% range and wages have been in the 0.7-1.0% range. 
Compensation gains in service industries have accelerated moderately during the period while gains in the goods producing sector have slowed considerably.

<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/@EB08/@EB08.HTM">ECI- Private Industry Workers</a></th>
<th scope="col">1Q&#39;02</th>
<th scope="col">4Q&#39;01</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Compensation</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wages &amp; Salaries</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Benefit Costs</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Initial Jobless Insurance Claims Fell 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 25, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020425b.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance fell more than expected as fewer people filed for extended benefits. The prior week&#39;s level was revised up. 
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance, which are unaffected by extended benefits, fell after surging the week prior which was revised down slightly.
The four-week moving average of claims rose to 452,500. 
The insured rate of unemployment fell to 2.9%.

<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">04/20/02</th>
<th scope="col">04/13/02</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>421.0</td>
<td>452.0</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>405.8</td>
<td>299.8</td>
<td>297.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>3,714</td>
<td>34.5%</td>
<td>3,021</td>
<td>2,114</td>
<td>2,186</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Existing Home Sales Fell More than Expected 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 25, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020425c.jpg" width="353">
Sales of existing single family homes fell more than expected last month, down 8.3% versus February which was revised up slightly. Sales had set a record in January.
Home sales were down sharply in each of the country&#146;s four regions.
The median price of an existing home rose to $153,000 (6.7% y/y). February figures were revised slightly lower.
The figures reflect closings of past sales. 
The average rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage rose to 7.01% last month from 6.89% in February.

<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">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Existing Single-Family</td>
<td>&nbsp;5,400</td>
<td>&nbsp;5,890</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>5,291</td>
<td>5,159</td>
<td>5,193</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Help Wanted Advertising Stayed Low 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 25, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020425d.jpg" width="353">
The Conference Board&#39;s National Index of Help-Wanted Advertising fell slightly in March and remained in the low range it has tracked since October. 
During the past ten years there has been a 75% correlation between the level of help-wanted advertising and the three-month % change in nonfarm payrolls. 
By region, job opportunities improved little across the nation. 
The figures are seasonally adjusted.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/CBDB/@C3/@C3.HTM">Conference Board</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar&#39;02</th>
<th scope="col">Feb&#39;02</th>
<th scope="col">Mar &#39;01</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Nat&#39;l Help Wanted Index</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>67</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The employment cost index rose as expected last quarter. This 1Q report was virtually identical in substance to the 4Q report: higher unemployment rates have constrained growth in wages and benefits. Quarterly gains in compensation [...]

Employment Cost Index Up Moderately

<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/020424a.jpg" width="353">
Durable goods orders fell unexpectedly last month following a February gain that was revised up.
The report excludes semiconductors because many chip makers declined to supply data. Semiconductors were removed from the January and February figures in order to make comparisons with those months possible. In February, semiconductors accounted for roughly 3 percent of durables orders.
Orders for defense goods surged 17.8% following a 94.2% gain in February. Excluding defense, durable orders fell 1.2% and are down 3.4% since December, but these results exclude semis.
Orders for electrical equipment fell 2.3%, the third sharp decline in four months. Orders for transportation equipment fell 1.6% after higher aircraft orders boosted February 11.2%.
Durable shipments were unchanged after having been down in three of the prior four months.
Durable inventories fell 1.1% and have fallen in each of the last fourteen months.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED01/@ED0101/@ED0101.HTM">NAICS Classification</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Durable Goods Orders</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>-6.7%</td>
<td>-12.0%</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nondefense Capital Goods</td>
<td>-2.8%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>-18.4%</td>
<td>-17.2%</td>
<td>14.4%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
New Home Sales Down in March 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 24, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020424b.jpg" width="353">
Sales of new single family homes fell slightly last month but February sales were revised higher.
Sales of 880,000 were expected.
Sales were down in each of the country&#146;s regions except the West.
The median price of a new home fell 3.4% to $176,700, +6.3% y/y. February was revised up.
The new home sales data reflect current sales versus the existing home sales figure which reflects closings on past sales. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E904/@E90401/@E90401.HTM">Homes Sales (000s, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">New Single-Family</td>
<td>878</td>
<td>906</td>
<td>-7.9%</td>
<td>909</td>
<td>881</td>
<td>879</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Durable goods orders fell unexpectedly last month following a February gain that was revised up. The report excludes semiconductors because many chip makers declined to supply data. Semiconductors were removed from the January and [...]

Durable Goods Orders 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

Winnie Tapasanun

260715J53.jpg

260715K53.jpg

The Empire State Manufacturing Index of General Business Conditions rose to a higher-than-expected 15.6 in July following a 13.9-point drop to 5.7 in June, according to the Empire State Manufacturing Survey released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. A reading of 8.6 for July had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The positive July figure indicated that the business activity in New York State expanded for the fourth consecutive month and at a faster pace; it was a sharp improvement from 3.1 in July 2025 and a low of -29.7 in January 2024, though still below its most recent high of 19.6 in May and a high of 16.8 in November 2024. The percentage of respondents reporting an increase in general business conditions was 39.0% in July, up from 28.9% in June; the percentage reporting a decrease was 23.4%, up from June’s 23.2%. The latest survey was conducted between July 2 and July 10.

The headline index reflects the answer to a single question concerning the state of economic activity and is not calculated from the components. Haver Analytics calculates a composite index from the five major components, which is comparable to the ISM manufacturing index. This calculated index increased to 57.5 in July following a 4.6-point decline to 53.4 in June, representing the seventh straight expansion; it was modestly up from 54.1 in July 2025 and well above a low of 43.0 in January 2024. The index is the average of five diffusion indexes: new orders, shipments, employment, supplier deliveries and inventories, with equal weights (20% each).

In the latest survey, the new orders index jumped to 22.2 in July after a 19.2-point drop to 3.5 in June, marking the seventh consecutive expansion and a sharp improvement from a low of -30.7 in January 2024. The shipments index advanced to 24.4 in July, the highest level since April 2022, following a 10.3-point decrease to 8.6 in June; it was well above a low of -21.7 in April 2024. The unfilled orders index held at 5.0 in July and June after 4.9 in May, indicating unfilled orders expanded for the sixth straight month; the index reached its recent high of 10.8 in March and a low of -24.2 in January 2024. The inventories index increased to 4.0 in July following a 9.7-point decline to 0.0 in June, signaling inventories rose slightly this month after being unchanged. Meanwhile, the delivery times index rose to 13.0 in July from 11.9 in June, with 20.0% of respondents reporting longer delivery times and 7.0% reporting shorter times, indicating that delivery times continued to lengthen.

On the labor front, the number of employees index rose to 11.4 in July after a 1.3-point rebound to 9.6 in June, indicating that employment expanded for the sixth successive month and reached its highest level since December 2022. The index remained well above a low of -9.3 in December 2023 but below a peak of 24.9 in February 2022. In July, a higher 20.9% of respondents reported an increase in employment while 9.6% reported a decline. The average workweek index fell to 2.8 in July from 5.1 in June, remaining positive for the sixth straight month, albeit at a four-month low.

Inflation pressures eased in July but remained elevated. The prices paid index fell to 52.3 in July, the lowest level since April, after a 1.6-point decline to 61.0 in June. Although well below a peak of 84.9 in April 2022, the index remained above a low of 25.9 in December 2024 and a low of 20.8 in December 2023. In July, 55.4% of respondents reported higher prices paid while only 3.1% reported lower prices paid. The prices received index slid to 27.6 in July, a three-month low, from 31.4 in June. The index was above a low of 7.5 in December 2024 and a low of 7.7 in July 2023 but far below a high of 51.9 in March 2022. In July, 31.3% of respondents reported higher prices received while 3.6% reported lower prices received.

Firms remained fairly optimistic about the future business outlook in the latest survey. The index for future business conditions eased to 27.9 in July, the lowest level since April, after a 3.4-point decrease to 30.1 in June, with 49.9% of respondents expecting business conditions to improve over the next six months. Future new orders edged up to 33.2 in July, the highest level since February, from 32.5 in June, while future shipments slipped to 30.6 from 32.2. Growth in future employment slowed to 14.4, the lowest reading since December, from June’s 20.9. Capital spending plans remained positive for the ninth consecutive month in July, with the future capital expenditures index rising to 15.0 from June’s 10.9. Expected prices paid fell to 53.0 in July, the lowest level since March, from 59.4 in June, and expected prices received fell to 41.9, the lowest level since April, from 51.6.

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

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

260715L53.jpg

260715M53.jpg

- General Business Conditions Index up 9.9 pts. to 15.6 in July; fourth straight expansion.
- Shipments (24.4), highest since Apr. ’22; new orders (22.2); unfilled orders (5.0); inventories (4.0).
- Employment (11.4), a solid reading and highest since Dec. ’22.
- Prices paid (52.3) and prices received (27.6) both at three-month lows.
- Firms fairly optimistic: Future Business Conditions Index down to a still-positive 27.9; future prices paid at a four-month-low 53.0.

U.S. Empire State Manufacturing Index Rebounds Strongly in July

Robert Brusca

260715E.jpg

Industrial production in the European Monetary Union (EMU) shows only a very minor and idiosyncratic sector acceleration in the nondurable goods sector. Other sectors show trends that are not focused and drift into random variability. Nondurable goods output shows growth of -10.9% over 12 months, improving to a pace of -9.9% over six months annualized and improving further to -8.7% annualized over three months. The irony is that nondurable output is contracting over all these periods, but the contractions are becoming slightly less virulent. It is nothing to base any optimism on despite the technically ‘improving’ trend.

Total output and manufacturing output in the EMU each show strong gains annualized over three months after declines on balance over six months and 12 months. 

While the secular trends are not clear in showing persistent accelerations or decelerations for the most part, it's true that output across the consumer industries continues to show contraction on all timelines. When we move to intermediate goods and capital goods, we're looking at output showing increases over 12 months, six months, and three months. Even if there are not clear progressions, the persistence of output gains is notable. This again underscores the extent to which expansion is being carried ahead by business and not by the consumer, even in Europe.

On a quarter-to-date (QTD) basis (two months into the second quarter), output is generally showing increases, with the exception of consumer durable goods showing an output decline at a 2.4% annual rate. Top-line growth is still very unimpressive, with total industrial production at a 0.6% annual growth rate and manufacturing alone at a 0.4% annual growth rate; neither of these is strong, solid, or impressive.

Turning to the percentile standing data that evaluate the strength of year-over-year growth on a historic timeline, we see that manufacturing and total output growth log percentile standings just below the 30th percentile. Consumer goods, as an aggregate category, have a 1.3% standing, which is extremely weak. That standing consists of a 29% standing for consumer durables and a 1.3 percentile standing for consumer nondurables output.

Once again, it is intermediate and capital goods that are the backbone of support for output. Intermediate goods’ annual growth rate has a 63-percentile standing, and the year-over-year growth rate for capital goods has a 52.9 percentile standing. Both being above the 50% mark puts them above their median for the period of analysis; that period extends back to August 2006, roughly a 20-year period.

I previously reported on the country detail. The country detail shows accelerating manufacturing output in Ireland, Portugal, and Sweden (Sweden that is not a monetary union member). Austria, a monetary union member, shows persistent deceleration, while the rest of the countries in the group show somewhat chaotic patterns.

While the percentile standing for year-over-year growth in manufacturing is at the 27th percentile mark for the whole of the monetary union, that amalgamation includes size weighting for that evaluation. If we take the unweighted averages for the percentile standings for 11 of the oldest monetary union members, their average individual ranking is much higher at a 48.3 percentile mark. Clearly, there are great differences by country across the monetary union, and this gives the ECB an additional headache in trying to make one monetary policy for such a varied group of economies.

260715.jpg

Europe

IP in EMU Remains Weak

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

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%).