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/041015g.jpg" width="353">
The Mid-October reading of consumer sentiment from the University of Michigan plunged 7.1% to 87.5 on the heels of declines during the prior two months. Consensus expectations for a reading of 95.0.
During the last ten years there has been a 75% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the y/y change in real PCE.
The War in Iraq, the higher price of gasoline and several hurricanes which buffeted Florida are the likely culprits behind the fall in sentiment.
The reading of current economic conditions fell a sharp 4.0%, about the same as in September, but it was consumer expectations that took a powder with a 9.5% drop.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.The mid-month survey is based on telephone interviews with 250 households nationwide on personal finances and business and buying conditions. The survey is expanded to a total of 500 interviews at month end.

<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"> University of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col"> Mid-Oct</th>
<th scope="col"> Sept</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"> 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>87.5</td>
<td>94.2</td>
<td>-2.3%</td>
<td>87.6</td>
<td>89.6</td>
<td>89.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>99.6</td>
<td>103.7</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>97.2</td>
<td>97.5</td>
<td>100.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Consumer Expectations</td>
<td>79.6</td>
<td>88.0</td>
<td>-4.1%</td>
<td>81.4</td>
<td>84.6</td>
<td>82.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Mid-October reading of consumer sentiment from the University of Michigan plunged 7.1% to 87.5 on the heels of declines during the prior two months. Consensus expectations for a reading of 95.0. During the last ten years there has [...]

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Plunged

<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/041015e.jpg" width="353">
In September, industrial production rose just 0.2% following a downwardly revised 0.2% decline the prior month. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% September increase.
Production in the factory sector fell 0.3% (+5.3% y/y) last month following the modest 0.2% August gain.
Output fell broadly; motor vehicles (-0.4% m/m, -1.2% y/y), furniture (-0.6% m/m, +2.9% y/y), petroleum (-3.3% m/m, -0.3% y/y), and textiles (-0.9% m/m, -1.7% y/y).
The high tech sector was relatively firm posting a 1.0% (20.8% y/y) gain, however the prior month&#39;s strength was revised down and the sector&#39;s growth has been ebbing.Factory output excluding motor vehicles &amp; high tech fell 0.3% (+4.8% y/y), the third down month in the last four (August was revised to a 0.2% decline).<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041015f.jpg" width="353">
Total capacity utilization was stable at an upwardly revised 77.3%. Growth in capacity inched up to 1.4% y/y from 1.1% earlier this year.

<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/@EA/@EA.HTM"> Production &amp; Capacity</a></th>
<th scope="col">Aug</th>
<th scope="col"> July</th>
<th scope="col"> Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"> 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Industrial Production</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-3.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capacity Utilization</td>
<td>77.2%</td>
<td>77.2%</td>
<td>74.9%(9/03)</td>
<td>74.8%</td>
<td>75.6%</td>
<td>77.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

In September, industrial production rose just 0.2% following a downwardly revised 0.2% decline the prior month. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% September increase. Production in the factory sector fell 0.3% (+5.3% y/y) last [...]

Industrial Production Disappointing, Factory Output Down Broadly

<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/041015c.jpg" width="353">
The October Empire State Index of General Business Conditions in New York&#39;s manufacturing industries fell 9.8 points to 17.43 following a 14.04 point gain in September.
New orders and shipments both gave back some of the prior months&#39; gains.The employment measure also fell. Like the Philadelphia Fed Index of General Business Conditions, the Empire State Business Conditions Index reflects answers to an independent survey question; it is not a weighted combination of the components.
The prices paid jumped to a record high of 59.17.
Expectations for business conditions six months fell modestly as did expectations for capital expenditures. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041015d.jpg" width="353">
The Empire State Manufacturing Survey is a monthly survey of manufacturers in New York State conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Participants from across the state in a variety of industries respond to a questionnaire and report the change in a variety of indicators from the previous month. Respondents also state the likely direction of these same indicators six months ahead. April 2002 is the first report, although survey data date back to July 2001.
For more on the Empire State Manufacturing Survey, including methodologies and the latest report, click <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/regional_economy/empiresurvey_overview.html"> here</a>.
&quot;What Can Regional Manufacturing Surveys Tell Us? - Lessons From the Tenth District&quot; from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City is available <a href="http://www.kansascityfed.org/PUBLICAT/ECONREV/Pdf/3q04keet.pdf"> here</a>.

<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/SURVEYS/@S5/@S511/@S511.HTM"> Empire State Manufacturing Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">Oct</th>
<th scope="col">Sept</th>
<th scope="col">10/03</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">General Business Conditions (diffusion index)</td>
<td>17.43</td>
<td>27.26</td>
<td>20.20</td>
<td>16.30</td>
<td>7.02</td>
<td>-13.57</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The October Empire State Index of General Business Conditions in New York's manufacturing industries fell 9.8 points to 17.43 following a 14.04 point gain in September. New orders and shipments both gave back some of the prior months' [...]

Empire State Index Dropped

<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/041015a.jpg" width="353">
In September the finished goods PPI rose 0.1% and matched Consensus expectations. The gain followed slight decline in two of the prior three months. Less food &amp; energy prices were a bit stronger, up 0.3%, versus expectations for a 0.2% rise.
&quot;Core&quot; finished consumer goods prices jumped 0.4% (2.0% y/y) on the strength of higher durable &amp; nondurable goods prices. Finished capital goods prices also registered a firm 0.4% (1.8% y/y) gain reflecting strength in prices of textile machinery as well as ships.
Finished energy prices fell 0.9% (9.1% y/y). Residential gas prices dropped a not seasonally adjusted 2.4% (5.7% y/y) but they have recovered in October.Gasoline prices rose a not seasonally adjusted 1.9% m/m (+18.9% y/y).
Crude prices less food &amp; energy reversed some of the prior month&#39;s strength with a 2.5% decline. During the last thirty years &quot;core&quot; crude prices have been a fair indicator of activity in the industrial sector. There has been a 51% correlation between the six month change in core crude prices and the change in factory sector industrial production. Overall crude prices fell 4.2%, dragged lower by the 6.6% decline in crude energy costs.
Intermediate goods prices ticked just 0.1% higher but core intermediate prices added 0.7% to the 1.0% August jump. Industrial chemical prices continued strong.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM"> Producer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">Sept</th>
<th scope="col">Aug</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"> 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Finished Goods</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>-4.2%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>14.2%</td>
<td>25.1%</td>
<td>-10.6%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-2.5%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>25.4%</td>
<td>12.4%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>-10.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

In September the finished goods PPI rose 0.1% and matched Consensus expectations. The gain followed slight decline in two of the prior three months. Less food & energy prices were a bit stronger, up 0.3%, versus expectations for a [...]

Finished Producer Prices Up 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/041015b.jpg" width="353">
US retail sales jumped 1.5% last month following a little revised 0.2% decline in August. The gain far outpaced Consensus expectations for a 0.6% rise.
Higher sales of motor vehicles led the surge. A 4.2% jump in sales at motor vehicle &amp; parts dealers reflected the 5.5% m/m increase in unit sales of light vehicles
Excluding motor vehicles sales rose 0.6% after an unrevised 0.2% gain in August. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% increase.
Discretionary spending rebounded from a lackluster performance in August. Clothing &amp; accessory store sales rose 0.8% (4.0% y/y) following a 0.7% August drop that was half the decline initially reported.Sales at general merchandise stores surged 1.1% (+5.4% y/y) but sales of furniture/home furnishings &amp; electronics/appliances were unchanged (3.9% y/y) after a 1.1% decline in August that was deeper than the 0.4% decline initially reported.
Building materials, garden equipment &amp; supply dealers&#39; sales surged 1.4% (14.4% y/y).
Sales at gasoline service stations ticked up 0.1% (15.1% y/y) after two months of 0.1% decline. Retail gasoline prices fell in each of those months but in October they are up to $1.99/gallon versus an average $1.87 in September.
Today&#39;s remarks on oil by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200410152/default.htm"> here</a>.

<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">Sept</th>
<th scope="col">Aug</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"> 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</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>1.5%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding Autos</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

US retail sales jumped 1.5% last month following a little revised 0.2% decline in August. The gain far outpaced Consensus expectations for a 0.6% rise. Higher sales of motor vehicles led the surge. A 4.2% jump in sales at motor [...]

U.S. Consumer Spending Firm

<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/041015h.jpg" width="353">
US retail sales jumped 1.5% last month following a little revised 0.2% decline in August. The gain far outpaced Consensus expectations for a 0.6% rise.
Higher sales of motor vehicles led the surge. A 4.2% jump in sales at motor vehicle &amp; parts dealers reflected the 5.5% m/m increase in unit sales of light vehicles
Excluding motor vehicles sales rose 0.6% after an unrevised 0.2% gain in August. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% increase.
Discretionary spending rebounded from a lackluster performance in August. Clothing &amp; accessory store sales rose 0.8% (4.0% y/y) following a 0.7% August drop that was half the decline initially reported.Sales at general merchandise stores surged 1.1% (+5.4% y/y) but sales of furniture/home furnishings &amp; electronics/appliances were unchanged (3.9% y/y) after a 1.1% decline in August that was deeper than the 0.4% decline initially reported.
Building materials, garden equipment &amp; supply dealers&#39; sales surged 1.4% (14.4% y/y).
Sales at gasoline service stations ticked up 0.1% (15.1% y/y) after two months of 0.1% decline. Retail gasoline prices fell in each of those months but in October they are up to $1.99/gallon versus an average $1.87 in September.

<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">Sept</th>
<th scope="col">Aug</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"> 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</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>1.5%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding Autos</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Finished Producer Prices Up Slightly 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> October 15, 2004


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041015a.jpg" width="353">
In September the finished goods PPI rose 0.1% and matched Consensus expectations. The gain followed slight decline in two of the prior three months. Less food &amp; energy prices were a bit stronger, up 0.3%, versus expectations for a 0.2% rise.
&quot;Core&quot; finished consumer goods prices jumped 0.4% (2.0% y/y) on the strength of higher durable &amp; nondurable goods prices. Finished capital goods prices also registered a firm 0.4% (1.8% y/y) gain reflecting strength in prices of textile machinery as well as ships.
Finished energy prices fell 0.9% (9.1% y/y). Residential gas prices dropped a not seasonally adjusted 2.4% (5.7% y/y) but they have recovered in October.Gasoline prices rose a not seasonally adjusted 1.9% m/m (+18.9% y/y).
Crude prices less food &amp; energy reversed some of the prior month&#39;s strength with a 2.5% decline. During the last thirty years &quot;core&quot; crude prices have been a fair indicator of activity in the industrial sector. There has been a 51% correlation between the six month change in core crude prices and the change in factory sector industrial production. Overall crude prices fell 4.2%, dragged lower by the 6.6% decline in crude energy costs.
Intermediate goods prices ticked just 0.1% higher but core intermediate prices added 0.7% to the 1.0% August jump. Industrial chemical prices continued strong.
Today&#39;s remarks on oil by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200410152/default.htm"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM"> Producer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">Sept</th>
<th scope="col">Aug</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"> 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Finished Goods</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>-4.2%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>14.2%</td>
<td>25.1%</td>
<td>-10.6%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-2.5%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>25.4%</td>
<td>12.4%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>-10.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Empire State Index Dropped 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> October 15, 2004


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041015c.jpg" width="353">
The October Empire State Index of General Business Conditions in New York&#39;s manufacturing industries fell 9.8 points to 17.43 following a 14.04 point gain in September.
New orders and shipments both gave back some of the prior months&#39; gains.The employment measure also fell. Like the Philadelphia Fed Index of General Business Conditions, the Empire State Business Conditions Index reflects answers to an independent survey question; it is not a weighted combination of the components.
The prices paid jumped to a record high of 59.17.
Expectations for business conditions six months fell modestly as did expectations for capital expenditures. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041015d.jpg" width="353">
The Empire State Manufacturing Survey is a monthly survey of manufacturers in New York State conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Participants from across the state in a variety of industries respond to a questionnaire and report the change in a variety of indicators from the previous month. Respondents also state the likely direction of these same indicators six months ahead. April 2002 is the first report, although survey data date back to July 2001.
For more on the Empire State Manufacturing Survey, including methodologies and the latest report, click <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/regional_economy/empiresurvey_overview.html"> here</a>.
&quot;What Can Regional Manufacturing Surveys Tell Us? - Lessons From the Tenth District&quot; from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City is available <a href="http://www.kansascityfed.org/PUBLICAT/ECONREV/Pdf/3q04keet.pdf"> here</a>.

<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/SURVEYS/@S5/@S511/@S511.HTM"> Empire State Manufacturing Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">Oct</th>
<th scope="col">Sept</th>
<th scope="col">10/03</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">General Business Conditions (diffusion index)</td>
<td>17.43</td>
<td>27.26</td>
<td>20.20</td>
<td>16.30</td>
<td>7.02</td>
<td>-13.57</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Industrial Production Disappointing, Factory Output Down Broadly 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> October 15, 2004


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041015e.jpg" width="353">
In September, industrial production rose just 0.2% following a downwardly revised 0.2% decline the prior month. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% September increase.
Production in the factory sector fell 0.3% (+5.3% y/y) last month following the modest 0.2% August gain.
Output fell broadly; motor vehicles (-0.4% m/m, -1.2% y/y), furniture (-0.6% m/m, +2.9% y/y), petroleum (-3.3% m/m, -0.3% y/y), and textiles (-0.9% m/m, -1.7% y/y).
The high tech sector was relatively firm posting a 1.0% (20.8% y/y) gain, however the prior month&#39;s strength was revised down and the sector&#39;s growth has been ebbing.Factory output excluding motor vehicles &amp; high tech fell 0.3% (+4.8% y/y), the third down month in the last four (August was revised to a 0.2% decline).<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041015f.jpg" width="353">
Total capacity utilization was stable at an upwardly revised 77.3%. Growth in capacity inched up to 1.4% y/y from 1.1% earlier this year.

<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/@EA/@EA.HTM"> Production &amp; Capacity</a></th>
<th scope="col">Aug</th>
<th scope="col"> July</th>
<th scope="col"> Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"> 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Industrial Production</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-3.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capacity Utilization</td>
<td>77.2%</td>
<td>77.2%</td>
<td>74.9%(9/03)</td>
<td>74.8%</td>
<td>75.6%</td>
<td>77.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Consumer Sentiment Plunged 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> October 15, 2004


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041015g.jpg" width="353">
The Mid-October reading of consumer sentiment from the University of Michigan plunged 7.1% to 87.5 on the heels of declines during the prior two months. Consensus expectations for a reading of 95.0.
During the last ten years there has been a 75% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the y/y change in real PCE.
The War in Iraq, the higher price of gasoline and several hurricanes which buffeted Florida are the likely culprits behind the fall in sentiment.
The reading of current economic conditions fell a sharp 4.0%, about the same as in September, but it was consumer expectations that took a powder with a 9.5% drop.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.The mid-month survey is based on telephone interviews with 250 households nationwide on personal finances and business and buying conditions. The survey is expanded to a total of 500 interviews at month end.

<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"> University of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col"> Mid-Oct</th>
<th scope="col"> Sept</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"> 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>87.5</td>
<td>94.2</td>
<td>-2.3%</td>
<td>87.6</td>
<td>89.6</td>
<td>89.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>99.6</td>
<td>103.7</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>97.2</td>
<td>97.5</td>
<td>100.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Consumer Expectations</td>
<td>79.6</td>
<td>88.0</td>
<td>-4.1%</td>
<td>81.4</td>
<td>84.6</td>
<td>82.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
FY 2004 U.S. Budget Complete 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> October 15, 2004


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041015h.jpg" width="353">
The US budget deficit at $413B for FY 2004 came in slightly below the latest Congressional Budget Office estimate of $422. The latest CBO deficit estimate for FY05 is $348B.
For FY04 the deficit of $412.6B was 9.4% larger than a year earlier. According to the Fed&#39;s Flow of Funds figures, through 2Q04 the growth in outstanding liabilities of the Federal government grew 10.6% y/y versus 7.4% growth in nonfederal liabilities.
Growth in net receipts improved late in the fiscal year raising the year&#39;s growth to 5.5% versus a 3.8% decline in FY03. Individual tax receipts jumped in September, as they often do, and pulled the FY04 total up 1.9% versus a decline of 7.5% last year. Corporate tax receipts also surged in September and rose 43.7% in FY04.
Growth in Federal net expenditures for FY04 eased slightly to 6.2% versus 7.4% growth in FY03. Defense expenditures actually grew a lesser 12.7% versus 15.9% growth last year. Growth in Medicare outlays was stable at 8.0 and interest expense grew 4.8% versus a 10.5% decline during last year. Outlays for income security fell 0.4% after as 7.5% rise in FY03 and growth in education &amp; training outlays slowed to 6.8% from 16.5%.
&quot;The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update&quot; from the Congressional Budget Office is available <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5773/08-24-BudgetUpdate.pdf"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E1/@E106/@E10602/@E10602.HTM"> US Government Finance</a></th>
<th scope="col">Sept</th>
<th scope="col">Aug</th>
<th scope="col">Sept &#39;03</th>
<th scope="col">FY2004</th>
<th scope="col">FY2003</th>
<th scope="col">FY2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Budget Balance</td>
<td>$24.4B</td>
<td>$-41.1B</td>
<td>$23.4B</td>
<td>$-412.6B</td>
<td>$-377.1B</td>
<td>$-157.8B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Revenues</td>
<td>$207.4B</td>
<td>$137.7B</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
<td>-6.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Outlays</td>
<td>$183.0B</td>
<td>$178.9B</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Carol Stone, CBE

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041014d.jpg" width="353">
The Economic and Social Research Institute of the Japanese Government Cabinet Office (ESRI) has reorganized its survey on consumer confidence. The new data began in April; some old data are still useful. In particular, the survey is now monthly instead of quarterly and combines the two former surveys of &quot;two-person-plus households&quot; and &quot;single-person households&quot;, yielding data for a new grouping, &quot;all households&quot;. The sampling for the old &quot;two-person-plus&quot; grouping is basically the same, but that for single-persons has been increased by some 300, about 25% larger than before.
&quot;Consumer confidence&quot; is now defined as the average of people&#39;s perceptions of four concepts: overall livelihood, income growth, employment and willingness to buy durable goods. Formerly, a price variable was also included, but now price expectations are measured quantitatively. The changes in the survey mean that for many items, only a few data points presently exist. Where comparability is maintained, ESRI has continued seasonal adjustment, but it applies only to the third month of each quarter, for which there are long series. New series will have to accumulate for several years before seasonal patterns will appear.
News services today gave the main emphasis to a decline in the confidence indexes for September. Indeed, they are down from July and August. The reading for 2+person households is 46.1 (not seasonally adjusted), compared with 49.2 in August and 48.7 in July. At the same time, the September data are far better than earlier periods. As recently as December 2003, we saw only 39.2 and an all-time low of 33.0 in December 2001. The last data having a magnitude similar to September&#39;s were in the first half of 1991, more than 13 years ago. The greatest spurs to recent strength have been the components covering the assessment of employment conditions and respondents&#39; willingness to buy durable goods. In the past, the desire to buy durable goods has often run ahead of the total confidence measure, so this is not so remarkable. But only in the late 1980s and very early 1990s was the employment item higher than the total. Even the backtracking in September still left employment looking slightly firmer than confidence in general. To us, this relatively favorable employment performance would seem to extend a generally hopeful outlook among consumers, albeit less buoyant than during the summer. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Diffusion Indexes, Not Seasonally Adjusted</th>
<th scope="col">Sept 2004</th>
<th scope="col">Aug 2004</th>
<th scope="col">July 2004</th>
<th scope="col">Sept 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2+Person Households: Consumer Confidence Index</td>
<td>46.1</td>
<td>49.2</td>
<td>48.7</td>
<td>39.9</td>
<td>37.7</td>
<td>37.0</td>
<td>36.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Overall Livelihood</td>
<td>45.1</td>
<td>47.5</td>
<td>47.1</td>
<td>40.8</td>
<td>38.8</td>
<td>39.0</td>
<td>39.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Employment</td>
<td>46.9</td>
<td>50.7</td>
<td>50.2</td>
<td>35.8</td>
<td>31.5</td>
<td>27.7</td>
<td>25.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Single-Person Households: Overall Livelihood</td>
<td>45.7</td>
<td>47.8</td>
<td>47.9</td>
<td>42.9</td>
<td>42.4</td>
<td>41.6</td>
<td>43.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Economic and Social Research Institute of the Japanese Government Cabinet Office (ESRI) has reorganized its survey on consumer confidence. The new data began in April; some old data are still useful. In particular, the survey is [...]

New Japanese Consumer Confidence Survey Shows Confidence Down in September, But Still Much Higher than Last Few Years

<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/041014a.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose 15,000 last week to 352,000 after a 35,000 decline the prior week that was little revised. Consensus expectations had been for 345,000 claims.
The increase may have reflected aberrant seasonal adjustment factors.
The 4-week moving average of initial claims rose to 353,000 (-9.7% y/y). During the last ten years there has been an 81% (negative) correlation between the monthly average of initial claims and the y/y change in payroll employment.
Ongoing claims for unemployment insurance continued lower by 11,000 following a decline the prior week that was revised deeper to 9,000.
The insured rate of unemployment remained at 2.3% where it has hovered since the end of April.

<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"> 10/09/04</th>
<th scope="col"> 10/02/04</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"> 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>352</td>
<td>337</td>
<td>-9.0%</td>
<td>402</td>
<td>404</td>
<td>406</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>2,845</td>
<td>-20.4%</td>
<td>3,531</td>
<td>3,570</td>
<td>3,018</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose 15,000 last week to 352,000 after a 35,000 decline the prior week that was little revised. Consensus expectations had been for 345,000 claims. The increase may have reflected aberrant [...]

Initial Jobless Insurance Claims Rose

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

Equity market exuberance outpacing macroeconomic data

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

US production rebounded in Q2, but demand continued to slow

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

Negative US inflation surprises leading G10 down

Deflation continues in China

Incoming data surprising on downside in US; positive surprises elsewhere

FOMC expects more inflation and less growth than in March

With escalation of Israel/Iran conflict, geopolitical risk has recently surged while US trade policy uncertainty has ebbed

Renewed supply chain pressures point to a rebound in global inflation ahead

Apart from Japan, Blue Chip forecasters look for further significant monetary policy easing

Apart from the US, productivity is moribund

Financial market concerns ebb even though policy uncertainty continues to soar

US tariff revenues nearly doubled in April

Even with expected tariff-induced increases in inflation, BCFF forecasters look for a more aggressive round of monetary easing

USD/EUR exchange rate uncoupling from interest rate differential

Widespread downgrading of 2025 GDP outlook

Trade and fiscal policy uncertainty has exploded with the new administration

Much lower US electricity costs gives it a competitive advantage

Wage growth slowing in the US and Euro area; elevated and sticky in the UK

Stagflation-lite: Blue Chip forecasts below-trend growth and elevated inflation

US policy gyrations boosting policy uncertainty worldwide

Expected tariff hikes have boosted inflation expectations

US and Japan ended 2024 on solid ground in contrast to Europe

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

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

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

250825A12.jpg

250825B12.jpg

Sales of new single-family home sales fell 0.6% (-8.2% y/y) to 652,000 (SAAR) during July after increasing 4.1% in June to 656,000, revised from 627,000, and falling 10.8% in May to 630,000, revised from 623,000 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected sales of 635,000 in July. The sales gain occurred as the average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage eased m/m to an average 6.72% in July from 6.82% in June, according to Freddie Mac.

By region, new home sales varied across the country last month. Sales of new homes in the Midwest fell 6.6% (+4.9% y/y) to 85,000, after rising 12.3% during June. In the South, new home sales weakened 3.5% (-4.0% y/y) to 388,000, following a 7.2% Increase in June. Offsetting these declines, sales of new homes in the West rose 11.7% (-19.9% y/y) in July to 153,000, after three straight months of decline. Showing less weakness, new home sales in the Northeast held steady last month (-23.5% y/y) at 26,000, after declining 10.3% in June.

The median sales price of a new home declined 0.8% (-5.9% y/y) to $403,800 (NSA) in July after falling 3.8% to $407,200 in June. New home prices were 12.3% below the all-time peak of $460,300 in October 2022. The average sales price of a new home fell 3.6% (-5.0% y/y) to $487,300 in July, off for the third straight month. The average price was 10.0% below a high of $541,200 in July 2022. These sales price data are not seasonally adjusted.

The number of unsold new homes on the market fell 0.6% (+7.3% y/y) to 499,000 (SA) in July, after easing 0.2% in June. The seasonally adjusted months' supply of new homes for sale held steady at 9.2 months in July, after falling from 9.6 months in May. The latest reading remained above a low of 6.9 months in May 2023.

The median number of months a new home stayed on the market increased to 2.9 months in July, remaining above a June 2024 low of 2.1 months. The latest number stood well above its record low of 1.5 months in both September and October of 2022, but remained below a high of 5.1 months in March 2021. These figures date back to January 1975.

New home sales are recorded when the sales contract is signed. New home sales activity and prices are available in Haver's **USECON** database. The consensus expectation figure from Action Economics is available in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250825C12.jpg

250825D12.jpg

- Small decline in sales follows sharp increase.
- Sales are mixed throughout the country.
- Median sales price declines for second straight month.

U.S. New Home Sales & Prices Ease in July

250825F8.jpg

250825G8.jpg

The National Activity Index (CFNAI) of -0.19 in July, reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, edged down from -0.18 in June, revised from -0.10, and -0.18 in May, revised from -0.16.

The index's three-month moving average, which smooths out the m/m volatility in the index, improved to -0.18 last month from -0.26 in June. A reading of zero equals trend real GDP growth. Research at the Chicago Fed indicates that an average reading of -0.70 or below is consistent with the economy being in a recession.

The July reading reflected a negative contribution from three of the four component series. The Production & Income index of -0.10 compared to +0.1 in June and -0.06 in May. The Employment, Unemployment & Hours index of -0.06 last month compared -0.08 in June and -0.05 in May. The Sales, Orders and Inventories reading of -0.02 came after -0.10 in June and +0.02 in May. The Personal Consumption & Housing contribution of 0.00 in July was little changed from -0.01 in June and compared to -0.10 in May.

Thirty-two of the 85 individual indicators made positive contributions to the CFNAI in July, while 53 made negative contributions. Forty-two indicators improved from June to July, while 41 indicators deteriorated and two were unchanged. Of the indicators that improved, 17 made negative contributions.

The CFNAI Diffusion Index, which measures the breadth of change in the component series and is also a three-month moving average, stood at -0.37 in June compared to -0.32 in May and -0.08 in April. A reading of zero indicates that all of the indicators are growing at their long-term average. Thirty-seven of the 85 individual data series made positive contributions to the total index in June while 48 contributed negatively.

The CFNAI is a weighted average of 85 indicators of national economic activity. It is constructed to have an average value of zero and a standard deviation of one. Since economic activity tends toward trend growth rate over time, a positive index reading corresponds to growth above trend and a negative index reading corresponds to growth below trend.

These figures are available in Haver's **SURVEYS** database.

- Three of four components make negative contributions.
- Production & employment lead downturn.
- Three-month trend improves.

Chicago Fed’s National Activity Index in July Suggests Growth Slowdown

250822A2.jpg

250822B2.jpg

The **Industrial Materials Price Index** from the Foundation for International Business and Economic Research (FIBER) declined 1.7% during the last four weeks, after easing 0.4% in the prior four weeks. Together, these declines left prices unchanged during the last twelve months. During July, factory sector production rose an improved 1.4% y/y.

**Crude Oil & Benzene** group costs led the overall price weakening as they moved 3.3% lower (-12.6% y/y) in the latest four week period. The price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil declined 5.0% to $62.94 per barrel and remained 14.7% lower y/y. It had fallen to a low of $58.50 per barrel in the second week of May. The cost of the petrol-chemical benzene, used for making plastics & synthetic fibers, weakened 7.0% (-32.3% y/y). Excluding crude oil, the industrial commodity price index weakened 1.5% (+1.0% y/y) during the last four weeks.

Lower **Miscellaneous** group prices followed with a 2.9% weakening in the latest four week period, but prices remained up 4.0% y/y. Lumber prices fell 9.9% (+15.2% y/y) during the last four weeks. Natural rubber prices also were fairly weak as they fell 6.9% (-11.5% y/y) in four weeks. Working higher, tallow costs (used in the soap industry) improved 0.6% (32.9% y/y) over the last four weeks.

**Metals** group prices fell 1.2% (+1.1% y/y) over four weeks. Lead prices declined 2.6% (-4.3% y/y) while copper scrap prices weakened 1.6% (+5.9% y/y). Aluminum prices were off 1.5% in four weeks (+7.5% y/y), and the cost of zinc declined 1.4% (+0.5% y/y). Tin prices eased 0.4% (+4.4% y/y), but steel scrap costs edged 0.2% higher (-6.7% y/y) over four weeks.

Prices in the **Textile** group moved 0.3% higher (2.0% y/y) during the last four weeks. Burlap costs improved 3.9% (15.9% y/y), but cotton prices fell 0.9% (+2.3% y/y) in four weeks.

The Foundation for International Business and Economic Research (FIBER) develops economic measurement techniques as applied to business cycles and inflation in the U.S. and other market economies. The commodity price data can be found in Haver's **DAILY**, **WEEKLY**, **USECON** and **CMDTY** databases.

**Monetary Policy and the Fed’s Framework Review** is the title of today’s speech by Fed Chair Jerome H. Powell, and it can be found [here](https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20250822a.htm).

250822C2.jpg

250822D2.jpg

- Decline reverses earlier strength.
- Crude oil costs lead the weakening.
- Lumber & metals prices follow, but textile costs rise.

FIBER: Industrial Commodity Prices Decline Sharply in Latest Four Weeks

Andrew Cates

**The US housing market**
This first chart below highlights the growing downside risks to the US economic outlook stemming from the housing market. The S&P Case-Shiller home price index has slowed sharply from the pandemic-era surge, while the NAHB (National Association of Homebuilders) housing market index has weakened to levels historically associated with falling home prices. Housing matters because it is not just a cyclical sector but also a key transmission channel for the broader economy: consumer confidence, household balance sheets and credit conditions are all heavily influenced by shifts in the housing market.

250821Z1.jpg

**China’s economy**
The latest run of data from China has also reinforced downside risks for the broader world economy. As the Citigroup Economic Surprise Indices show below, China-specific data have more consistently undershot expectations in recent days. China’s July releases in particular disappointed: retail sales growth slowed to just 3.7% y/y, with weakness in autos and furniture hinting that earlier policy-driven boosts are fading. Industrial output and fixed-asset investment also came in below consensus, while property prices continued to fall and retail sector investment contracted by double digits. Even the labour market showed strain, with unemployment edging higher. The worry is not just China’s slowdown in isolation, but the spillovers. Softer Chinese demand feeds directly into global supply chains, commodity markets, and regional trade partners. Combined with tariff and non-tariff headwinds from the US, the risk is that China’s structural challenges spill into weaker global growth momentum.

250821Z2.jpg

**UK inflation** 
Persistently high services inflation remains one of the biggest headaches for UK monetary policy - and the UK is far from unique in that regard. Services are wage- and demand-sensitive, and their stickiness complicates the calibration of monetary policy even as broader disinflation takes hold. This week’s July upside surprise to UK services inflation was driven in no small part by airfares, which spiked 30% month-on-month – the largest July rise on record. While such volatility may prove temporary, it nonetheless lifted year-on-year services inflation to 5.0%, well above comfort levels. Still, the offsets are important: stripping out airfares and other volatile components, underlying services momentum appears to have eased, while broader data on wages, employment, and activity point to cooling demand. Nevertheless, this tension – headline stickiness versus softer underlying trends – underscores why the Bank of England is treading carefully.

250821Z3.jpg

**Inflation expectations and energy**
US medium-term inflation expectations have been unusually decoupling from oil prices in recent weeks. Normally, falling oil prices would help anchor breakevens, yet the 5-year forward inflation rate has edged higher of late even as WTI has slipped. This probably reflects US tariff policies that are shifting inflation dynamics away from energy and toward trade-related costs. At the same time, a weaker dollar has lifted imported prices, and the upward creep in expectations suggests markets may be more actively questioning whether the Fed’s “higher for longer” stance is sufficient to contain medium-term inflation risks.

250821Z4.jpg

**Clean energy**
Pivoting to more structural issues, the stark divergence between the global clean energy equity market index and the broader S&P 500 underlines the mounting challenges facing the renewables sector at present. While US equities have pushed to record highs, clean energy stocks have languished, weighed down by policy uncertainty, higher financing costs, and a more sceptical public mood. In the US, shifting political winds and uneven implementation of green subsidies have clouded the outlook for investment, while globally, resistance to renewables has grown as consumers and businesses grapple with high energy bills. Rising interest rates have further undermined the economics of capital-intensive clean energy projects, eroding returns and delaying investment pipelines. At the same time, bottlenecks in transmission infrastructure, permitting delays, and questions over the pace of the net-zero transition have all dented confidence. The result is a sector underperforming dramatically even as the urgency of the climate challenge grows.

250821Z5.jpg

**Renewables versus non-renewables**
Global energy consumption data show how limited—and in some respects, stalled—the transition away from fossil fuels has become. Oil, gas, and coal still dominate the energy mix, with shares that have proven remarkably resilient over the past several years. In fact, coal use has ticked higher of late as countries turned back to cheaper, more secure supplies amid energy price spikes and supply disruptions. While renewables have grown rapidly in percentage terms, their absolute contribution remains small compared with the scale of fossil fuel demand. Nuclear and hydro have also struggled to gain ground, leaving the overall mix looking more like a story of continuity than transformation. The result is a global transition that has not just slowed but, in key areas, has partially reversed—highlighting the gulf between climate ambitions and energy realities.

250821Z6.jpg

Recent financial market gains have been underpinned by resilient global data, AI-fuelled optimism, and hopes that most central banks will continue to loosen monetary policy. Yet beneath the surface, a more complicated picture may be emerging. In the US, housing indicators are flashing warnings about household balance sheets and credit channels (chart 1), while China’s latest data—covering retail sales, industrial output, and property—underscore persistent weakness (chart 2). In the UK, this week’s data showing sticky services inflation is complicating the Bank of England’s easing path (chat 3), while back in the US, medium-term inflation expectations have been rising despite softer oil prices (chart 4), hinting at a more disruptive role for trade policy. Against this cyclical backdrop sit deeper structural challenges: global energy consumption remains overwhelmingly dependent on fossil fuels, the clean energy sector has lost momentum amid high costs and policy uncertainty, and equity markets have punished renewables even as climate imperatives intensify (charts 5 and 6). Together, these dynamics suggest that while markets continue to trade on optimism, the mix of weak housing signals, patchy Chinese demand, sticky inflation, and an uneven energy transition potentially leaves the global outlook more fragile than headline performance implies.

<iframe data-testid="embed-iframe" style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/1GqSlFq3gfZuMYDWhif8Ht?utm_source=generator" width="100%" height="152" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" loading="lazy"></iframe>

Charts of the Week: Cracks Beneath The Shine

250821J8.jpg

250821K8.jpg

Existing home sales rose 2.0% (0.8% y/y) to 4.01 million (SAAR) in July after falling 2.7% in June to an unrevised to 3.93 million and rising 1.0% to 4.04 million in May, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected 3.91 million unit sales in July. Last month’s sales decline accompanied a decline in the effective 30-year mortgage interest rate to 6.72% from 6.82% in June. The sales figures are based on closings of sales signed over the past couple of months.

Existing single-family home sales rose 2.0% (1.1% y/y) during July to 3.64 million units after a 3.0% decline to 3.57 million in June and a 1.4% May rise to 3.68 million. Sales of condos and co-ops rose 2.8% (-2.6% y/y) to 370,000 after holding steady in June.

Sales were mixed across the country last month. Sales in the Northeast increased 8.7% (2.0% y/y) to 500,000 following an 8.0% June decline. Sales in the South improved 2.2% both m/m and y/y to 1.85 million, after falling 2.2% in June. Sales in the West rose 1.4% (-4.0% y/y) to 720,000 after a 1.4% June gain. Falling by 1.1% (+1.1% y/y) to 940,000 were sales in the Midwest after falling 4.0% in June.

The median price of all existing homes (NSA) in July weakened 2.4% (+0.2% y/y) from the June record to $422,400. The median price of an existing single-family home fell 2.3% (+0.3% y/y) to $428,500 in July, and the median price of condos & co-ops declined 3.1% (-1.2% y/y) to $362,600 last month. Prices for homes in the West declined 1.1% (-1.4% y/y) to $620,700 while prices in the Northeast fell 6.3% (+0.8% y/y) to $509,300. In the South, prices were off 1.8% (-0.6% y/y) to $367,400 while in the Midwest, home prices fell 1.1% (+3.9% y/y) to $333,800.

The number of existing homes for sale (NSA) rose 0.6% (15.7% y/y) to 1.55 million units in July. The supply of homes on the market at the current selling rate (NSA) slipped to 4.6 months, still nearly the highest level in nine years, up from a low of 1.6 months in January 2022.

The data on existing home sales, prices and affordability are compiled by the National Association of Realtors. The data on single-family home sales extend back to February 1968. Total sales and price data and regional sales can be found in Haver's **USECON** database. Regional price and affordability data and national inventory data are available in the **REALTOR** database. Mortgage interest rates can be found in the **WEEKLY** database. The expectations figure is from the Action Economics Forecast Survey, reported in the **AS1REPNA** database.

The minutes to the latest **FOMC** meeting can be found [here](https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20250730.pdf).

250821L8.jpg

250821M8.jpg

- Home sales remain below recent high in December.
- Sales are slightly higher m/m in most of country.
- Median sales price slips from record high.

Economy in Brief: 2004

Jump to:

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Plunged

Industrial Production Disappointing, Factory Output Down Broadly

Empire State Index Dropped

Finished Producer Prices Up Slightly

U.S. Consumer Spending Firm

U.S. Consumer Spending Firm

New Japanese Consumer Confidence Survey Shows Confidence Down in September, But Still Much Higher than Last Few Years

Initial Jobless Insurance Claims Rose