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/020318a.jpg" width="353">
The PCE Chain Price Deflator recently has been quite subdued relative to the Consumer Price Index. Last year, the difference between growth in the two indexes less food &amp; energy jumped to 1.1 percentage points. 
The primary difference between the two series is their different weighting schemes. The PCE deflator published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis updates the weights assigned to each spending category each month as spending patterns change. The CPI published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics holds constant the weights that are currently based on the Consumer Expenditure Survey over the years 1999 and 2000.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics will begin publishing a Chained CPI effective with release of July data in August 2002. Designated the C-CPI-U, the index will supplement the existing indexes already produced by the BLS.
For more information on the upcoming CPI release go to <a href="http://www.bls.gov/cpi/superlink.htm">http://www.bls.gov/cpi/superlink.htm</a>

</body>
</html>

The PCE Chain Price Deflator recently has been quite subdued relative to the Consumer Price Index. Last year, the difference between growth in the two indexes less food & energy jumped to 1.1 percentage points. The primary difference [...]

PCE Price Deflator Subdued

<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/020315a.jpg" width="353">
Industrial production rose for the second month in a row led by factory sector increases of 0.3% in each month. 
Inventory cutbacks recently have severely depressed output. To rebuild inventories production must be raised to the level of sales which recently have been rising. 
Excluding computers and office equipment production rose 0.2% following a 0.3% January gain. Less autos output was up 0.4%. 
Output of consumer goods rose for the third month in four, but output of business equipment fell for the second month in three. 
Capacity utilization rose slightly due to the modest gain in output. Monthly increases in capacity slowed to just 0.1% (1.3% y/y) early last year. In 1998 industry capacity rose 6.7%.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EA/@EA.HTM">Production &amp; Capacity</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Industrial Production</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-4.1%</td>
<td>-3.7%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capacity Utilization</td>
<td>74.8%</td>
<td>74.5%</td>
<td>78.9%(2/01)</td>
<td>76.8%</td>
<td>81.8%</td>
<td>81.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Producer Prices Rise As Expected 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 15, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020315b.jpg" width="353">
Finished producer prices rose as expected last month due to a modest 0.4% rise in energy prices, up for the second consecutive month. Food prices popped 1.0%, the second strong monthly increase in a row. 
Core finished consumer goods prices were unchanged and a bit weaker than expected. 
Gasoline prices rose 5.2% for the second strong month in a row. Fuel oil prices also were strong but prices for natural gas and electricity fell. 
Household furniture and electronic equipment prices rose moderately but prices for appliances, floor coverings and autos fell. Apparel prices were generally weak. 
Intermediate goods prices fell for the eleventh time since last February. Core intermediate prices haven&#39;t risen since last March. 
Crude goods prices fell due to lower energy prices, but core crude prices rose reflecting the recent rebound in commodity prices

<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/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Finished Goods</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-2.7%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-4.6%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-1.9%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>-30.7%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>22.8%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-6.9%</td>
<td>-10.0%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>-4.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Consumer Sentiment Surged 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 15, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020315c.jpg" width="353">
The Mid-March reading of Consumer Sentiment by the University of Michigan was unexpectedly strong, rising to the highest level since December 2000. 
The improved sentiment level reflected higher readings of both consumer expectations and the current situation.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.
During the past five years there has been a 39% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the 3-month % change in real PCE.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Univ. of Michigan</th>
<th scope="col">Mid-March</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>95.0</td>
<td>90.7</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>89.2</td>
<td>107.6</td>
<td>105.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Industrial production rose for the second month in a row led by factory sector increases of 0.3% in each month. Inventory cutbacks recently have severely depressed output. To rebuild inventories production must be raised to the level [...]

Industrial Production Rose More 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/020314c.jpg" width="353">
Prices for imported commodities were weaker than expected last month, falling rather than rising 0.2% as expected by Consensus estimates.
Nonpetroleum import prices fell for the twelfth month in thirteen. Prices of capital goods and nonauto consumer goods continued slides that began in 1995. Imported food prices more than reversed a January run-up.
Petroleum import prices rose for the second month in a row and Brent crude oil prices are up further in March. 
Export prices fell for the twelfth month in thirteen.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E807/@E807.HTM">Import/Export Prices (NSA)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Import - All Commodities</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-8.3%</td>
<td>-3.5%</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Petroleum</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
<td>-30.4%</td>
<td>-17.2%</td>
<td>66.5%</td>
<td>34.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonpetroleum</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-5.0%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Export - All Commodities</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-2.9%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Initial Claims for Jobless Insurance Fell 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 14, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020314b.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance fell slightly less than expected in the latest week. The prior week&#39;s level was revised up from 376,000. Claims are up slightly versus February.
The chart indicates an 82% correlation between the level of initial claims and the 3-month change in nonfarm payrolls.
The four-week moving average of claims rose to 374,750.
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance rose sharply in the latest week but the prior week&#39;s level was revised down substantially.
The insured rate of unemployment rose slightly to 2.7%, about where it&#39;s been all year.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">03/09/02</th>
<th scope="col">03/02/02</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>377.0</td>
<td>380.0</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>408.0</td>
<td>302.8</td>
<td>297.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>3,479</td>
<td>40.3%</td>
<td>3,031</td>
<td>2,127</td>
<td>2,187</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Business Inventories Rose Unexpectedly 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 14, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020314a.jpg" width="353">
Total business inventories rose in January for the first time since January &#39;01 versus expectations for a slight decline. The decline in December inventories was little revised.
Nonauto retail inventories, the new news in today&#39;s report, rose for the first time since last August led by sharp increases in apparel and furniture. 
Inventories of motor vehicles &amp; parts also rose sharply, the second consecutive monthly gain following three months of decline.
Overall business sales surged 1.1% (-1.9% y/y) following no change in December. Higher sales by merchant wholesalers and manufacturers led the rise.
The inventory-to-sales ratio fell to 1.38, down from 1.42 for all of 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/@ED/@ED06/@ED0601/@ED0601.HTM">Business Inventories</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jan &#39;02</th>
<th scope="col">Dec &#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">Total</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-6.0%</td>
<td>-6.0%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Retail</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
<td>-4.7%</td>
<td>6.8%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Retail excl. Autos</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-5.1%</td>
<td>-5.3%</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-8.4%</td>
<td>-7.5%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
4Q Current Account Deficit Deepened Slightly 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 14, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020314d.jpg" width="353">
The US current account deficit deepened slightly last quarter following steady improvement during the prior year. 
A deeper deficit on unilateral transfers caused the deterioration in the current account. The deficit on goods, services and income improved slightly.
In percentage terms, exports of goods and services fell more than imports, but the deficit nevertheless improved because imports are so much larger than exports. 

<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/@EE/@EE01/@EE01.HTM">US Int&#39;l Balance of Payments</a></th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;01</th>
<th scope="col">3Q &#39;01</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Current Account Deficit</td>
<td>$98.8B</td>
<td>$98.5B</td>
<td>$116.3B</td>
<td>$417.4B</td>
<td>$444.7B</td>
<td>$324.4B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; % of GDP</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Deficit on Gds, Serv &amp; Income</td>
<td>$85.0B</td>
<td>$85.9B</td>
<td>$100.0B</td>
<td>$366.9B</td>
<td>$390.5B</td>
<td>$275.5B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Exports</td>
<td>-5.2%</td>
<td>-7.0%</td>
<td>-18.3%</td>
<td>-8.5%</td>
<td>14.2%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Imports</td>
<td>-4.3%</td>
<td>-7.7%</td>
<td>-17.5%</td>
<td>-7.9%</td>
<td>19.2%</td>
<td>11.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Unilateral Transfers Deficit</td>
<td>$13.9B</td>
<td>$12.7B</td>
<td>$16.7B</td>
<td>$50.5B</td>
<td>$54.1B</td>
<td>$48.9B</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Prices for imported commodities were weaker than expected last month, falling rather than rising 0.2% as expected by Consensus estimates. Nonpetroleum import prices fell for the twelfth month in thirteen. Prices of capital goods and [...]

Import Prices Resume Their Slide

<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/020313a.jpg" width="353">
Total retail sales rose modestly last month following January performance that was little revised. Sales excluding autos rose less than the expected 0.5% Consensus estimate following a January surge that was unrevised. 
Sales of furniture, home furnishings and electronics rose 1.3% following a 1.5% January drop that was revised from a 0.4% gain reported initially. 
Sales at clothing and accessory stores fell slightly following two months of strong gain.
Sales at general merchandise stores rose for the fifth consecutive month.
Sales at motor vehicle and parts dealers rose for only the second month in seven. Sales of domestic and imported light vehicles rose 5.4% (-4.8% y/y to 16.677M units (SAAR). 
Sales at gasoline service stations were flat.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/usecon/@ED/@ED04/@ED0401/@ED0401.HTM">Retail Sales &amp; Food Services</a></td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding Autos</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>8.0%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Total retail sales rose modestly last month following January performance that was little revised. Sales excluding autos rose less than the expected 0.5% Consensus estimate following a January surge that was unrevised. Sales of [...]

Retail Sales Up Less 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/020312a.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales fell 0.7% last week marking the third consecutive week of moderate decline. Despite recent declines, the trend in store sales has clearly improved.
The latest week is the first full week of the month. So far, March sales remain slightly above the February 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">3/09/02</th>
<th scope="col">3/02/02</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>407.1</td>
<td>409.8</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Foreign Exchange Value of the US $ Falls 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 12, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020312b.jpg" width="353">
The foreign exchange value of the US dollar has fallen more than 1% since its highs set in January.
The decline has been led by weakness against the Japanese Yen which is up nearly 5% during the period due to tentative signs of economic recovery in Japan and new trade legislation in the US.
Despite the recent $ weakness, it&#39;s value remains high relative to recent years.

<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/daily/@D2/@D202/@D202.HTM">Trade-Weighted Value of US$</a></th>
<th scope="col">3/08/02</th>
<th scope="col">3/01/02</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Nominal FX Value of the US$</td>
<td>128.83</td>
<td>129.62</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Chain store sales fell 0.7% last week marking the third consecutive week of moderate decline. Despite recent declines, the trend in store sales has clearly improved. The latest week is the first full week of the month. So far, March [...]

Weekly Chain Store Sales Slip

<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/020311a.jpg" width="353">
Announcements of job cuts in February reversed a January run-up, falling to the lowest level since June of last year according to the Challenger, Gray and Christmas survey. 
The February decline confirms improvement in the labor market recently reported weekly by lower claims for jobless insurance and by last Friday&#39;s report of a rise in February nonfarm payrolls.
Announced cuts in the automotive industry plunged to 16,318 from 43,035 in January. Most other industries reported fewer job cuts except commodities, entertainment and consumer goods. 
The figures are not seasonally adjusted.

ECRI Leading Inflation Gauge Up  
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 11, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020311b.jpg" width="353">
The Future Inflation Gauge published by the Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI) rose in February by 2.6%. 
While large, the February gain was the first material rise since early 2000. It raised the six-month growth rate in the index to -6.2%.
Since 1994, there has been roughly a 40% correlation between the the six-month growth in the ECRI leading inflation indicator and growth in the core Consumer Price Index, twelve months hence. 

</body>
</html>

Announcements of job cuts in February reversed a January run-up, falling to the lowest level since June of last year according to the Challenger, Gray and Christmas survey. The February decline confirms improvement in the labor market [...]

Job Cut Announcements Plunge

<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/020308a.jpg" width="353">
Nonfarm payrolls rose much more than expected last month, although job loss in January was revised deeper due to a deepened estimate of cuts in the factory sector. Consensus estimates had been for no change in February payrolls.
It was the first gain in payrolls since last July. The breadth of job gain improved as indicated by the one month diffusion index rising to 48.2, the highest level since March.
From the household survey, the unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since October.
The median duration of unemployment fell sharply to 8.1 weeks from 8.8 weeks in January. That was still up versus 6.0 weeks last February.
Factory sector jobs continued to fall with losses in the industrial machinery, electronic equipment and nondurable sectors. Nevertheless, the one month diffusion index for the factory sector improved to 40.8 versus a low of 25.7 in November.
Construction sector jobs rose 25,000 (-1.0% y/y) following a 63,000 loss in January. 
Employment in the service sector rose 97,000 (0.1% m/m) led by strong gains at general merchandise stores. Employment in many other service sectors fell. 
The index of aggregate hours worked (employment times hours worked) rose 0.1%. The Jan-Feb average is 1.1% (AR) below 4Q.Aggregate hours continued to fall in the factory sector. 
Average hourly earnings were little changed versus consensus expectations for a 0.3% gain, but January was revised up from no change.
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%">

</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">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Payroll Employment</td>
<td>66,000</td>
<td>-126,000</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>-50,000</td>
<td>-110,000</td>
<td>-7.2%</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>34.1</td>
<td>34.3</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>0.2%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Nonfarm payrolls rose much more than expected last month, although job loss in January was revised deeper due to a deepened estimate of cuts in the factory sector. Consensus estimates had been for no change in February payrolls. It [...]

Employment Rose More 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/020307a.jpg" width="353">
Nonfarm labor productivity grew much more than expected last quarter. Growth was revised up to 5.2% from the preliminary estimate of 3.5%. Revised growth of 4.2% had been expected.
Upward revision to productivity caused the price-to-unit labor cost ratio, a key measure of corporate profitability, to rise despite lower prices.
Unit Labor costs fell more than twice as much as originally estimated as a result of the upward productivity estimate. Compensation growth was little changed, and it has slowed considerably from its peak growth rate of 8.1% in 2Q 2000. 
The upward revision to productivity growth was the result of output growth that was revised to 1.2% from -0.4%. Hours worked were little changed at -3.8%. 
Inflation was benign with the price deflator for the nonfarm business sector declining 0.6%, the first decline since 3Q 1954. 
Manufacturing sector productivity growth was revised to 4.1% following 2.6% growth in 3Q. Unit labor costs declined 1.5%.

<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/@EC/@EC02/@EC02.HTM">Nonfarm Business Sector</a></th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;01</th>
<th scope="col">3Q &#39;01</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Output per Hour</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Compensation</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unit Labor Costs</td>
<td>-2.7%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Initial Jobless Insurance Claims Up Slightly 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 7, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020307b.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance fell less than expected in the latest week, and the prior week&#39;s level was revised slightly higher.
The four-week moving average of claims fell slightly to 372,750, the lowest level since August.
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance fell in the latest week. The prior week&#39;s level was revised down.
The insured rate of unemployment fell to 2.6%, the same level as four weeks earlier.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">03/02</th>
<th scope="col">02/23</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>376.0</td>
<td>381.0</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>408.0</td>
<td>302.8</td>
<td>297.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>3,406</td>
<td>42.6%</td>
<td>3,3031</td>
<td>2,127</td>
<td>2,187</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Consumer Borrowing Surged in January 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 7, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020307c.jpg" width="353">
Consumer borrowing surged unexpectedly in January, continuing an upward trend that recently has accompanied strength in retail spending and declines in employment. 
Commercial banks lent a record $6.0B (NSA) last month to pace the jump in nonrevolving credit (autos and other personal loans).
Revolving credit rose a modest amount after contracting in December. Large unadjusted declines were registered amongst many issuers.

<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">Jan &#39;02 m/m</th>
<th scope="col">Dec &#39;01 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>$12.8B</td>
<td>$1.8B</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>10.2%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Revolving</td>
<td>$1.2B</td>
<td>$-5.6B</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>11.5%</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonrevolving</td>
<td>$11.7B</td>
<td>$7.5B</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>9.2%</td>
<td>8.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Nonfarm labor productivity grew much more than expected last quarter. Growth was revised up to 5.2% from the preliminary estimate of 3.5%. Revised growth of 4.2% had been expected. Upward revision to productivity caused the price-to- [...]

Nonfarm Productivity Revision Unexpected

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%).