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" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090729a.jpg">
The recent improvement in factory sector activity stuttered last month as June durable goods orders fell. The 2.5% decline reversed nearly all of the increases during the prior two months. Moreover, the May increase was revised weaker. Consensus expectations had been for a lesser 0.6% drop. That&#39;s not to say that the recent improvement in factory sector orders was totally reversed last month. Most of the latest decline was due to lower orders for aircraft. On a three-month basis durable goods orders less the transportation sector overall have risen at a 7.2% annual rate.
Perhaps setting the stage for an orders rebound is the lower level of factory inventories. Inventories of durable goods fell for the sixth consecutive month. The 0.9% decline (-4.3% y/y) followed a 1.1% May decline that was deeper than reported initially. Notable, though, has been the vigor of the recent cutback of unwanted inventories On a three-month basis, decumulation of durable goods inventories continued last month at a near-record 12.3% annual rate. Decumulation of inventories has been notable across industries, but especially so in the metals, machinery and motor vehicle sectors. <img align="right" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090729b.jpg">
Lower new orders for transportation equipment paced last month&#39;s decline in the total. The 12.8% m/m decline followed a 2.7% gain during May. Notably weak were orders for commercial aircraft which fell 38.5% (-61.0% y/y), reversing all of the strong gain during May. In addition, orders for motor vehicles &amp; parts fell 1.0% (-31.8% y/y) following the 8.7% May decline, prompted by lower sales. Adding to this weakness was a 2.5% decline in orders for computers &amp; electronic products (-15.1% y/y) which returned them to the lowest level since January. Computer orders slipped just 1.2% (-17.3% y/y) after a strong May but orders for communications equipment fell a hard 10.8% (-26.2% y/y) to their lowest level since late-2005. Moving the other way were machinery orders which posted a 4.4% increase (-26.3% y/y) after a firm May gain. Orders for primary metals were even stronger as they posted an 8.9% increase but that nevertheless left them off by nearly one-half from their year ago level. Electrical equipment orders were up just 0.9% (-31.1% y/y) following large declines during May and April.<img align="left" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090729c.jpg">
The recent improvement in the capital goods sector indeed stuttered last month. Orders for nondefense capital goods fell 3.4% as aircraft orders plunged. Conversely, orders excluding aircraft rose for a second month. The 1.4% increase followed a stronger May gain and that was enough to raise orders to their highest level this year. During the last ten years there has been an 80% correlation between the y/y change in nondefense capital goods orders and the change in equipment &amp; software spending in the GDP accounts. The correlation of the GDP figure with capital goods shipments is, as one would expect, a larger 92%.
Despite the improvement in orders, shipments of durable goods continued to languish. Shipments of durable goods slipped 0.2% (-21.0% y/y) last month and have fallen in each month since February of last year. That y/y decline in shipments has been accompanied by a 21.9% y/y drop in industrial production of durable goods which has shown little or no sign of turning around. During the last ten years, there has been an 80% correlation between the change in shipments of durable goods and the change in durables industrial production.
The durable goods figures are available in Haver&#39;s USECON database.
Monetary Policy in the 2008--2009 Recession from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond is available <a href="http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_quarterly/2009/spring/pdf/hetzel2.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/@ED/@ED01/@ED0101/@ED0101.HTM">NAICS Classification</a> (%)</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Durable Goods Orders</td>
<td>-2.5</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>-26.8</td>
<td>-5.8</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>6.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding Transportation</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>-24.1</td>
<td>-1.2</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>9.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Nondefense Capital Goods</td>
<td>-3.4</td>
<td>9.1</td>
<td>-28.8</td>
<td>-6.8</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>9.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Excluding Aircraft</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>-22.8</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>10.7</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The recent improvement in factory sector activity stuttered last month as June durable goods orders fell. The 2.5% decline reversed nearly all of the increases during the prior two months. Moreover, the May increase was revised [...]

U.S. Durable Goods Orders Decline Led By Aircraft & Computers; Lower Inventories May Set Stage for Rebound

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<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 src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090729a.jpg" align="left" border="0">
The recent improvement in factory sector activity stuttered
last month as June durable goods orders fell. The 2.5% decline reversed
nearly all of the increases during the prior two months. Moreover, the
May increase was revised weaker. Consensus expectations had been for a
lesser 0.6% drop. That's not to say that the recent improvement in
factory sector orders was totally reversed last month. Most of the
latest decline was due to lower orders for aircraft. On a three-month
basis durable goods orders less the transportation sector overall have
risen at a 7.2% annual rate.
Perhaps setting the stage for an orders rebound is the lower
level of factory inventories. Inventories of durable goods fell for the
sixth consecutive month. The 0.9% decline (-4.3% y/y) followed a 1.1%
May decline that was deeper than reported initially. Notable, though,
has been the vigor of the recent cutback of unwanted inventories
On a three-month basis, decumulation of durable goods
inventories continued last month at a near-record 12.3% annual rate.
Decumulation of inventories has been notable across industries, but
especially so in the metals, machinery and motor vehicle sectors. <img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090729b.jpg" align="right" border="0">
Lower new orders for transportation equipment paced last
month's decline in the total. The 12.8% m/m decline followed a 2.7%
gain during May. Notably weak were orders for commercial aircraft which
fell 38.5% (-61.0% y/y), reversing all of the strong gain during May.
In addition, orders for motor vehicles &amp; parts fell 1.0%
(-31.8% y/y) following the 8.7% May decline, prompted by lower sales.
Adding to this weakness was a 2.5% decline in orders for computers
&amp; electronic products (-15.1% y/y) which returned them to the
lowest level since January. Computer orders slipped just 1.2% (-17.3%
y/y) after a strong May but orders for communications equipment fell a
hard 10.8% (-26.2% y/y) to their lowest level since late-2005. Moving
the other way were machinery orders which posted a 4.4% increase
(-26.3% y/y) after a firm May gain. Orders for primary metals were even
stronger as they posted an 8.9% increase but that nevertheless left
them off by nearly one-half from their year ago level. Electrical
equipment orders were up just 0.9% (-31.1% y/y) following large
declines during May and April.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090729c.jpg" align="left" border="0">
The recent improvement in the capital goods sector indeed
stuttered last month. Orders for nondefense capital goods fell 3.4% as
aircraft orders plunged. Conversely, orders excluding aircraft rose for
a second month. The 1.4% increase followed a stronger May gain and that
was enough to raise orders to their highest level this year. During the
last ten years there has been an 80% correlation between the y/y change
in nondefense capital goods orders and the change in equipment
&amp; software spending in the GDP accounts. The correlation of the
GDP figure with capital goods shipments is, as one would expect, a
larger 92%.
Despite the improvement in orders, shipments of durable goods
continued to languish. Shipments of durable goods slipped 0.2% (-21.0%
y/y) last month and have fallen in each month since February of last
year. That y/y decline in shipments has been accompanied by a 21.9% y/y
drop in industrial production of durable goods which has shown little
or no sign of turning around. During the last ten years, there has been
an 80% correlation between the change in shipments of durable goods and
the change in durables industrial production.
The durable goods figures are available in Haver's USECON
database.
Monetary Policy in the 2008--2009 Recession from
the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond is available <a href="http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_quarterly/2009/spring/pdf/hetzel2.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/@ED/@ED01/@ED0101/@ED0101.HTM">NAICS
Classification</a> (%)</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Durable Goods Orders</td>
<td>-2.5</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>-26.8</td>
<td>-5.8</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>6.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Excluding Transportation</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>-24.1</td>
<td>-1.2</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>9.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Nondefense Capital Goods</td>
<td>-3.4</td>
<td>9.1</td>
<td>-28.8</td>
<td>-6.8</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>9.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Excluding Aircraft</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>-22.8</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>10.7</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Japan Retail Sales Remain Sour
 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> July 29, 2009


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090729d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Japan retail sales fell in June but June caps a three-month
period in which sales have expanded. Still, in the quarter-to-date
Japan&#8217;s retail sales are falling but only slightly. 
 

Over 12-months retail sales are off by about 3%, led by
declines in fabric and apparel and the rest of retail which dropped by
4.2%. Auto sales are only off by 0.5% Yr/Yr. Food and beverage sales
are off by 1.2%. Sales at department stores and supermarkets slipped
6.7% on the year, and after those figures are adjusted for the number
of stores (same-store sales), sales posted their 15th straight monthly
decline, according to METI. 
 

This is hardly a robust picture of activity yet today the MoF
upgraded its assessment of Japan&#8217;s economy for the first time in five
years. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said. The
government's massive stimulus measures, which include tax-cut programs
such as incentives to buy new cars, may help to boost retail sales in
the future. For now the consumer is in the doldrums and spending habits
remain subdued. Leading indicators for Japan have not turned the corner
to signal positive trends yet. 
 
 


Japan Retail Sales Trends
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Jun-09</td>
<td>May-09</td>
<td>Apr-09</td>
<td>3-mo</td>
<td>6-mo</td>
<td>12-mo</td>
<td>Yr-Ago</td>
<td>Q-to-Date</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total SA</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>-2.9%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Not
seasonally adjusted</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total: Nominal</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Motor Vehicles</td>
<td>-1.9%</td>
<td>-4.1%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>-5.7%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-3.2%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Food&amp;
Beverage</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-3.7%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>14.8%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Fabric
apparel&amp; access</td>
<td>-4.5%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>-6.5%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>-5.7%</td>
<td>-6.6%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rest of Retail</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>-4.2%</td>
<td>-5.0%</td>
<td>-1.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

U.S. Durable Goods Orders DeclineLed By Aircraft & Computers; Lower Inventories May Set Stage for Rebound

<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/090728e.jpg" width="353">
According to the Conference Board, consumer confidence fell slightly during July for the second consecutive monthly decline. Despite these shortfalls, however, confidence remained up sharply from the February low. The Conference Board data can be found in Haver&#39;s CBDB database.
During the last ten years there has been an 86% correlation between the level of consumer confidence and the y/y change in real consumer spending.
Consumers&#39; assessment of the current economic conditions fell the hardest last month and remained near the recent low. It remained off by almost two-thirds from a year earlier. Jobs were seen as hard to get by an increased 48.1% of respondents and jobs were seen as plentiful by 3.6% which was near the series&#39; low. Business conditions were seen as good by just 9.1% and that was near the 1991 low. Consumers who thought business conditions were bad rose slightly to 46.3%, still near the highest since 1983.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090728f.jpg" width="353">
The decline in the expectations component of confidence lagged just slightly with a 5.3% m/m decline. Still, the index remained near the highest level since late 2007. The percentage of respondents expecting business conditions to improve fell to 18.0% though that remained near the highest level since 2004. A much reduced 18.9% expected conditions to worsen. Only 15.0% of respondents expected any economic improvement to generate more jobs, more than double the percentage at the recent low.
Expectations for the inflation rate in twelve months fell back to 5.5%. That&#39;s down from last year&#39;s high of 7.7%. Interest rates in twelve months were expected by 51.9% to be higher while 16.6% expected rates to fall. A greatly increased 31.5% of respondents expected stock prices to rise.
Consumers certainly plan to manage their spending plans cautiously. Just 2.1% plan to buy a home during the next six months while 25.4% plan to buy a major appliance. That&#39;s versus 30.9% who did back in 2007. Only 4.5% plan to buy an automobile, versus 6.0% in 2007.
The Federal Reserve Board announced that it will soon begin a statistical study of household finances to update data collected at the outset of the economic downturn that began in late 2007.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Conference Board &nbsp;(SA, 1985=100)</th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Confidence Index</td>
<td>46.6</td>
<td>49.3</td>
<td>-10.2</td>
<td>57.9</td>
<td>103.4</td>
<td>105.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Present Situation</td>
<td>23.4</td>
<td>25.0</td>
<td>-64.4</td>
<td>69.9</td>
<td>128.8</td>
<td>130.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Expectations</td>
<td>62.0</td>
<td>65.5</td>
<td>45.2</td>
<td>50.0</td>
<td>86.4</td>
<td>89.7</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

According to the Conference Board, consumer confidence fell slightly during July for the second consecutive monthly decline. Despite these shortfalls, however, confidence remained up sharply from the February low. The Conference Board [...]

U.S. Consumer Confidence Slips For A Second Month

Robert Brusca

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<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 src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090728d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Confidence is UP! Consumer confidence in
Italy is at its highest since November 2007. Still since January 1992
the reading stand is at the 40th to 41st percentile of its range and in
terms of the ranking among all previous observations. This it is some
10 percentage points below its middle position in terms of range or
ranking percentiles. Ranking percentiles position a reading in a queue
of values while range percentiles position the reading in a range
bounded by the high and low readings. Both readings have some merit. 
 

Past 12 month - Rating the past twelve
months, the overall situation is rates as a -68 which puts it in the
55th percentile in terms of rankings. Prices trends at -48 are the
worst in this period by either range of ranking methods. 
 

The expected future - Looking ahead the
next twelve months overall situation is assigned a value of +2 leaving
it in the top 92nd percentile by ranking, but only the 65th percentile
according to the position of the reading in its range. Obviously among
all rankings this reading is relatively strong but there must be a
strong reading that lies at a much, much higher level to depress the
range reading so much. That would be a reading from June 2001, as from
April to Sept of 2001 readings on this score soared then dipped back to
a more normal range. Unemployment readings are still elevated at a +8
reading. That leaves the reading in the moderated 55th percentile by
range but at a much higher 94th percentile by ranking. Those two
readings tell us that the unemployment reading is rarely higher than
this but it has spiked much higher in the past. The response to the
household budget situation remains weak by any measure at a +1. 
 

Current/Future comparisons - Households
assess their current and future situations as about to be much improved
in the next twelve months with their range and ranking percentile
readings rising from a bottom quarter or third position currently to a
50% to two-thirds position in the outlook. Current savings are
considered high, future savings are expected to be low. Similarly,
major purchase environment was construed as middling over the past
12-months abut is expected to improve sharply to top 4% or better in
the future. 
 

Summing up - On balance these responses by
Italian households show a clear disappointment with past trends. In
that respect the expected future improvement is harder to read. Some of
the future readings are more middling some are strong. It is still not
clear if consumers simply are optimistic that things will improve from
the dregs of the last 12 months or if things are expected to improved
to true strong readings. As current conditions improve we will monitor
these future readings and see if they continue to show the strength
that some of the categories currently exhibit. If much better
conditions are expected then as the current readings improve the future
readings should remain high. If the future is simply expected to be
&#8216;normal&#8217; as the current situation normalizes the expectations readings
in the survey will recede to a region of boredom. 


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jul-09</th>
<th scope="col">Jun-09</th>
<th scope="col">May-09</th>
<th scope="col">Apr-09</th>
<th scope="col">Percentile</th>
<th scope="col">Rank</th>
<th scope="col">percentile</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>107.5</td>
<td>105.4</td>
<td>104.9</td>
<td>104.9</td>
<td>41.3</td>
<td>126</td>
<td>40.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Last 12 months</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">OVERALL SITUATION</td>
<td>-68</td>
<td>-68</td>
<td>-73</td>
<td>-74</td>
<td>63.2</td>
<td>93</td>
<td>55.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">PRICE TRENDS</td>
<td>-48</td>
<td>-40.5</td>
<td>-45</td>
<td>-43</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>211</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Next 12months</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">OVERALL SITUATION</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-8</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-26</td>
<td>65.1</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>92.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">PRICE TRENDS</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>8.5</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>9.5</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>112</td>
<td>46.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">UNEMPLOYMENT</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>55.9</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>94.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">HOUSEHOLD BUDGET</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>17.0</td>
<td>199</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="8">HOUSEHOLD FIN SITUATION</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Last 12 months</td>
<td>-40</td>
<td>-37</td>
<td>-34</td>
<td>-37</td>
<td>32.7</td>
<td>155</td>
<td>26.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Next12 months</td>
<td>-2</td>
<td>-4</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>67.3</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>56.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="8">HOUSEHOLD SAVINGS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Current</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>72.7</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>93.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Future</td>
<td>-30</td>
<td>-25</td>
<td>-29</td>
<td>-29</td>
<td>38.3</td>
<td>170</td>
<td>19.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="8">MAJOR
Purchases</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Current</td>
<td>-40</td>
<td>-39</td>
<td>-43</td>
<td>-41</td>
<td>42.1</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>53.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Future</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>96.8</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>98.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="firstcol" colspan="8">
Total number of months: 211
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Confidence is UP! Consumer confidence in Italy is at its highest since November 2007. Still since January 1992 the reading stand is at the 40th to 41st percentile of its range and in terms of the ranking among all previous [...]

Italy's Recovery In Confidence Continues... Still A Ways To Go

<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/090728c.jpg" width="353">
Signs that the worst of the downtrend in the U.S. economy may have passed helped stabilize the earlier weakness in the oil market. The pump price for regular gasoline increased last week to an average $2.50 per gallon, though that still was down nineteen cents from last month&#39;s high. The increase added to the eighty cent (55%) rise from the December low. At $1.87 per gallon in the cash market, gasoline prices yesterday continued to rally off the early-July low of $1.60. The figures are reported by the U.S. Department of Energy and can be found in Haver&#39;s WEEKLY &amp; DAILY databases.
Crude oil prices also recovered last week. Light sweet crude oil prices (WTI) increased to $64.99 per barrel, up $3.72 from the low. Yesterday the spot market price for light sweet crude oil recovered further to $68.38 per barrel. Prices had reached a daily high of $72.68 earlier in July.
Natural gas prices rose slightly for the second week. Last week&#39;s average price of $3.49 per mmbtu (-64.8% y/y) was down by three-quarters from the high reached in early-July of last year of $13.19/mmbtu.
Financial Stress: What Is It, How Can It Be Measured, and Why Does It Matter? from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City can be found <a href="http://www.kansascityfed.org/PUBLICAT/ECONREV/pdf/09q2hakkio_keeton.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/WEEKLY/@W4/@W4.HTM">Weekly Prices</a></th>
<th scope="col">07/27/09</th>
<th scope="col">07/20/09</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retail Regular Gasoline ($ per Gallon, Regular)</td>
<td>2.50</td>
<td>2.46</td>
<td>-36.7%</td>
<td>3.25</td>
<td>2.80</td>
<td>2.57</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Light Sweet Crude Oil, WTI&nbsp; ($ per bbl.)</td>
<td>64.99</td>
<td>61.27</td>
<td>-48.5%</td>
<td>100.16</td>
<td>72.25</td>
<td>66.12</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Signs that the worst of the downtrend in the U.S. economy may have passed helped stabilize the earlier weakness in the oil market. The pump price for regular gasoline increased last week to an average $2.50 per gallon, though that [...]

Gasoline Prices Stabilize With The Rise In Crude Oil Costs

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<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 src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090728a.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">The
declines
in home prices are moderating. That's the message from May's 0.2%
seasonally adjusted decline in the S&amp;P/Case-Shiller
Home Price Composite Index of twenty metro-markets. The moderation
eased the y/y drop to 17.1% but prices still were
down by nearly one-third since the peak in May 2006. The May decline in
prices was less than the expected 17.9% y/y drop, and not seasonally
adjusted, prices even posted an increase of 0.5% for the month.
The
Case-Shiller index of 20 U.S. cities and their surrounding areas is
value-weighted. A greater index weight is assigned to more expensive
homes and the series dates back only to 2001. The
S&amp;P/Case-Shiller home price series can be found in Haver's USECON
database and the city data highlighted below is in the REGIONAL
database. Here is a <a href="http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/index/CSHomePrice_Release_063055.pdf">link</a>
to the latest press release from Standard &amp; Poor's. An overview
of the S&amp;P/Case-Shiller home price series can be found <a href="http://www2.standardandpoors.com/portal/site/sp/en/us/page.topic/indices_csmahp/0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0.html">here</a>.
pThe
Case-Shiller composite index of home prices in 10 metropolitan
areas, which has a longer history and dates back to 1987, also fell a
lessened 0.2% last month and was down 16.8% year-to-year. This measure
also was down by nearly one-third since the 2006 peak.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090728b.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">Less
Weak Regions:&nbsp;&nbsp; Home prices in some areas
of the country have firmed lately though they remain down year-to-year.&nbsp;
In Cleveland, Ohio prices rose for the second month
(-6.2% y/y) and in Dallas prices rose slightly m/m as well (-4.2% y/y).
Prices ticked up 0.3% in Denver (-4.6% y/y).&nbsp; Boston prices
also ticked higher during the month (-7.2% y/y) and in Chicago home
prices rose slightly (-17.5% y/y). In New York prices slipped m/m
(-12.2% y/y) and are off roughly 20% from their 2006 peak. In
Charlotte, North Carolina prices also continued down but just
moderately (-10.1% y/y.).Weakest Regions: Home
prices in Phoenix, Nevada were quite weak and fell another 1.7% m/m
(-34.2% y/y. Home prices in Las Vegas, Nevada continued their rapid
rate of decline with a 3.1% m/m drop (-32.0% y/y, and also were down by
roughly one-half from their peak. Home prices in Miami again fell a
hard 1.1% (-25.1% y/y while home prices in Los Angeles continued to
fall sharply (-19.8% y/y). In Tampa, the rate of monthly price decline
slowed slightly to just 0.5% but prices still were off 20.8% y/y. In
Detroit, the monthly rate of price decline also eased considerably
(-24.5% y/y) but prices were off by early one-half from the
peak.&nbsp;In San Francisco prices rose 0.7%, but remained off
26.1% y/y.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090728g.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">Released
last week was the
House Price Index (HPH) from the
Federal Housing and Finance Agency (FHFA). The index rose 0.9% from
April for just the third monthly increase since 2005. Year-to-year,
that was enough to lessen the decline in the nationwide average of home
prices to 5.6% from its worst reading of -8.9% last November. The FHFA
uses data provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The series differs
from Case-Shiller in that it is not value-weighted, it covers a greater
area and it has a shorter history.
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">S&amp;P/Case-Shiller
Home Price Index (SA, Jan 00 = 100)</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">20 City Composite
Index</td>
<td>140.05</td>
<td>140.28</td>
<td>-17.1%</td>
<td>-15.8%</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</body></html>

The declines in home prices are moderating. That's the message from May's 0.2% seasonally adjusted decline in the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Composite Index of twenty metro-markets. The moderation eased the y/y drop to 17.1% but [...]

Case-Shiller Home Price Index Decline Eases

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<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 src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090728a.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">The
declines
in home prices are moderating. That's the message from May's 0.2%
seasonally adjusted decline in the S&amp;P/Case-Shiller
Home Price Composite Index of twenty metro-markets. The moderation
eased the y/y drop to 17.1% but prices still were
down by nearly one-third since the peak in May 2006. The May decline in
prices was less than the expected 17.9% y/y drop, and not seasonally
adjusted, prices even posted an increase of 0.5% for the month.
The
Case-Shiller index of 20 U.S. cities and their surrounding areas is
value-weighted. A greater index weight is assigned to more expensive
homes and the series dates back only to 2001. The
S&amp;P/Case-Shiller home price series can be found in Haver's USECON
database and the city data highlighted below is in the REGIONAL
database. Here is a <a href="http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/index/CSHomePrice_Release_063055.pdf">link</a>
to the latest press release from Standard &amp; Poor's. An overview
of the S&amp;P/Case-Shiller home price series can be found <a href="http://www2.standardandpoors.com/portal/site/sp/en/us/page.topic/indices_csmahp/0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0.html">here</a>.
pThe
Case-Shiller composite index of home prices in 10 metropolitan
areas, which has a longer history and dates back to 1987, also fell a
lessened 0.2% last month and was down 16.8% year-to-year. This measure
also was down by nearly one-third since the 2006 peak.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090728b.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">Less
Weak Regions:&nbsp;&nbsp; Home prices in some areas
of the country have firmed lately though they remain down year-to-year.&nbsp;
In Cleveland, Ohio prices rose for the second month
(-6.2% y/y) and in Dallas prices rose slightly m/m as well (-4.2% y/y).
Prices ticked up 0.3% in Denver (-4.6% y/y).&nbsp; Boston prices
also ticked higher during the month (-7.2% y/y) and in Chicago home
prices rose slightly (-17.5% y/y). In New York prices slipped m/m
(-12.2% y/y) and are off roughly 20% from their 2006 peak. In
Charlotte, North Carolina prices also continued down but just
moderately (-10.1% y/y.).
Weakest Regions: Home
prices in Phoenix, Nevada were quite weak and fell another 1.7% m/m
(-34.2% y/y. Home prices in Las Vegas, Nevada continued their rapid
rate of decline with a 3.1% m/m drop (-32.0% y/y, and also were down by
roughly one-half from their peak. Home prices in Miami again fell a
hard 1.1% (-25.1% y/y while home prices in Los Angeles continued to
fall sharply (-19.8% y/y). In Tampa, the rate of monthly price decline
slowed slightly to just 0.5% but prices still were off 20.8% y/y. In
Detroit, the monthly rate of price decline also eased considerably
(-24.5% y/y) but prices were off by early one-half from the
peak.&nbsp;In San Francisco prices rose 0.7%, but remained off
26.1% y/y.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090728g.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">Released
last week was the
House Price Index (HPH) from the
Federal Housing and Finance Agency (FHFA). The index rose 0.9% from
April for just the third monthly increase since 2005. Year-to-year,
that was enough to lessen the decline in the nationwide average of home
prices to 5.6% from its worst reading of -8.9% last November. The FHFA
uses data provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The series differs
from Case-Shiller in that it is not value-weighted, it covers a greater
area and it has a shorter history.
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">S&amp;P/Case-Shiller
Home Price Index (SA, Jan 00 = 100)</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">20 City Composite
Index</td>
<td>140.05</td>
<td>140.28</td>
<td>-17.1%</td>
<td>-15.8%</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


Gasoline Prices Stabilize With The
Rise In Crude Oil Costs 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> July 28, 2009


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090728c.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Signs that the worst of the downtrend in the U.S. economy may
have passed helped stabilize the earlier weakness in the oil market.
The pump price for regular gasoline increased last
week to an average $2.50 per gallon, though that still was down
nineteen cents from last month's high. The increase added to the eighty
cent (55%) rise from the December low. At $1.87 per gallon in the cash
market, gasoline prices yesterday continued to rally off the early-July
low of $1.60. The figures are reported by the U.S. Department of Energy
and can be found in Haver's WEEKLY &amp; DAILY databases.
Crude oil prices also recovered last week.
Light sweet crude oil prices (WTI) increased to $64.99 per barrel, up
$3.72 from the low. Yesterday the spot market price for light sweet
crude oil recovered further to $68.38 per barrel. Prices had reached a
daily high of $72.68 earlier in July.
Natural gas prices rose slightly for the second week. Last
week's average price of $3.49 per mmbtu (-64.8% y/y) was down by
three-quarters from the high reached in early-July of last year of
$13.19/mmbtu.
Financial Stress: What Is It, How Can It Be
Measured, and Why Does It Matter? from the Federal
Reserve Bank of Kansas City can be found <a href="http://www.kansascityfed.org/PUBLICAT/ECONREV/pdf/09q2hakkio_keeton.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/WEEKLY/@W4/@W4.HTM">Weekly
Prices</a></th>
<th scope="col">07/27/09</th>
<th scope="col">07/20/09</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retail Regular Gasoline ($ per
Gallon, Regular)</td>
<td>2.50</td>
<td>2.46</td>
<td>-36.7%</td>
<td>3.25</td>
<td>2.80</td>
<td>2.57</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Light Sweet Crude Oil,
WTI&nbsp; ($ per bbl.)</td>
<td>64.99</td>
<td>61.27</td>
<td>-48.5%</td>
<td>100.16</td>
<td>72.25</td>
<td>66.12</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Italy's Recovery In Confidence
Continues... Still A Ways To Go 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> July 28, 2009


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090728d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Confidence is UP! Consumer confidence in
Italy is at its highest since November 2007. Still since January 1992
the reading stand is at the 40th to 41st percentile of its range and in
terms of the ranking among all previous observations. This it is some
10 percentage points below its middle position in terms of range or
ranking percentiles. Ranking percentiles position a reading in a queue
of values while range percentiles position the reading in a range
bounded by the high and low readings. Both readings have some merit. 
 

Past 12 month - Rating the past twelve
months, the overall situation is rates as a -68 which puts it in the
55th percentile in terms of rankings. Prices trends at -48 are the
worst in this period by either range of ranking methods. 
 

The expected future - Looking ahead the
next twelve months overall situation is assigned a value of +2 leaving
it in the top 92nd percentile by ranking, but only the 65th percentile
according to the position of the reading in its range. Obviously among
all rankings this reading is relatively strong but there must be a
strong reading that lies at a much, much higher level to depress the
range reading so much. That would be a reading from June 2001, as from
April to Sept of 2001 readings on this score soared then dipped back to
a more normal range. Unemployment readings are still elevated at a +8
reading. That leaves the reading in the moderated 55th percentile by
range but at a much higher 94th percentile by ranking. Those two
readings tell us that the unemployment reading is rarely higher than
this but it has spiked much higher in the past. The response to the
household budget situation remains weak by any measure at a +1. 
 

Current/Future comparisons - Households
assess their current and future situations as about to be much improved
in the next twelve months with their range and ranking percentile
readings rising from a bottom quarter or third position currently to a
50% to two-thirds position in the outlook. Current savings are
considered high, future savings are expected to be low. Similarly,
major purchase environment was construed as middling over the past
12-months abut is expected to improve sharply to top 4% or better in
the future. 
 

Summing up - On balance these responses by
Italian households show a clear disappointment with past trends. In
that respect the expected future improvement is harder to read. Some of
the future readings are more middling some are strong. It is still not
clear if consumers simply are optimistic that things will improve from
the dregs of the last 12 months or if things are expected to improved
to true strong readings. As current conditions improve we will monitor
these future readings and see if they continue to show the strength
that some of the categories currently exhibit. If much better
conditions are expected then as the current readings improve the future
readings should remain high. If the future is simply expected to be
&#8216;normal&#8217; as the current situation normalizes the expectations readings
in the survey will recede to a region of boredom. 


Total number of months: 211
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jul-09</th>
<th scope="col">Jun-09</th>
<th scope="col">May-09</th>
<th scope="col">Apr-09</th>
<th scope="col">Percentile</th>
<th scope="col">Rank</th>
<th scope="col">percentile</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>107.5</td>
<td>105.4</td>
<td>104.9</td>
<td>104.9</td>
<td>41.3</td>
<td>126</td>
<td>40.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Last 12 months</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">OVERALL SITUATION</td>
<td>-68</td>
<td>-68</td>
<td>-73</td>
<td>-74</td>
<td>63.2</td>
<td>93</td>
<td>55.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">PRICE TRENDS</td>
<td>-48</td>
<td>-40.5</td>
<td>-45</td>
<td>-43</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>211</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Next 12months</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">OVERALL SITUATION</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-8</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-26</td>
<td>65.1</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>92.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">PRICE TRENDS</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>8.5</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>9.5</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>112</td>
<td>46.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">UNEMPLOYMENT</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>55.9</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>94.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">HOUSEHOLD BUDGET</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>17.0</td>
<td>199</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="8">HOUSEHOLD
FIN SITUATION</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Last 12 months</td>
<td>-40</td>
<td>-37</td>
<td>-34</td>
<td>-37</td>
<td>32.7</td>
<td>155</td>
<td>26.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Next12 months</td>
<td>-2</td>
<td>-4</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>67.3</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>56.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="8">HOUSEHOLD
SAVINGS</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Current</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>72.7</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>93.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Future</td>
<td>-30</td>
<td>-25</td>
<td>-29</td>
<td>-29</td>
<td>38.3</td>
<td>170</td>
<td>19.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="8">MAJOR
Purchases</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Current</td>
<td>-40</td>
<td>-39</td>
<td>-43</td>
<td>-41</td>
<td>42.1</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>53.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Future</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>96.8</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>98.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="firstcol" colspan="8">
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Case-Shiller Home Price IndexDecline Eases

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<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 src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090727c.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">BANKS,
MONEY, CREDIT- A number of reports are in the news today
about banking sector issues in lending. With the EMU money and credit
measures just out it&#8217;s an appropriate time to survey the background for
lending. The German Zew survey of lending institutions in Germany finds
that larger companies are having the harder time getting credit. Mutual
and cooperative style banks in Germany have been feeding credit more
easily to smaller institutions there. 

Outside EMU liquidity is expanding - The
table and charts at the top of this presentation reveal several the
trends. While UK money supply has boomed and busted, its rate of
monetary expansion remains the highest among this group of countries
and is still barely below its previous recent peak pace in 2006. The US
M2 pace spurted in 2008 and has since been locked in an erratic
declining growth rate phase. Japan&#8217;s money growth hit its low point in
2006 and has since been in a very gradual accelerating trend that
recently seems to have flattened out its growth. Japan is still the
weakest trend, however.
Special circumstances- In the UK there is a
push on to funnel credit to smaller businesses and that seems to be
working. In Japan there may be demand side pressures at work as the
corporate services price index fell sharply hinting at another round of
deflation in Japan. If that takes hold lending in Japan will suffer but
mostly from demand side weakness. 
ECB is tighter: Europe shows money supply
growth peaking in later 2007/early 2008 then steadily decelerating.
This is for a period when the rest of the countries were pushing out
liquidity at a faster pace. Despite its rate cuts, ECB liquidity in the
hands of the public has been consistently squeezed. Europe has its
lowest money supply growth since 2004, but it was last persistently
weaker than this back in 2001. Despite all its rhetoric about easing
and easy money, the ECB has been tightening its monetary grip in
quantity terms. 
Various horizons: The sequential growth
rates for money supply and for credit (in EMU) in the table above make
the point. Only EMU has one year money and credit growth so much weaker
than the annual rates over two years and three years. For the US, UK
and Japan over the recent one year money growth is stronger compared to
those earlier horizons. But over six months and three months the US and
the UK are seeing weaker money growth than over the longer the periods
as is EMU (same goes for credit in EMU). Only Japan is showing stronger
money growth more recently.
Real balances: Real balances turn the
tables on many of these trends. In terms of real balances Europe&#8217;s
growth in money is as strong - or stronger - than in the US and the UK
over the less than one year horizons. Japan&#8217;s growth is the strongest
of all over three-and &#8211;six months. But the better growth in real
balances in Europe is not having the desired impact on credit as
residential &#8216;real&#8217; credit growth has slowed to a crawl while overall
loan growth is shrinking in real terms. 
Risks still loom: Despite the fact that
some lending spreads are back to more of a normal configuration the
banking sector is having lingering troubles. We know that housing
credit issues like foreclosures usually lag the cycle. Traditionally
banks are still involved in dealing with credit hangovers even as the
economy improves. But in this instance the degree of economic and
credit improvement is not even in train. We are talking about less
weakness and better economic signals not of economic growth- at least
not yet. While there are some signs of economic and financial
stabilization the credit quality and lending scene has continued to
deteriorate. So even as we get more optimistic over the results of
recent economic indictors we must remain cognizant- as the central
banks do &#8211; that the banking sector is still in the midst of its big
chill. Financial stocks may have recovered from their deathbed
valuations and a few banks may have posted large corporate earnings for
a quarter, but for the sector at large, substantial risks still loom
and some cases the adverse pressures are getting worse.
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8">Look at Global and Euro
Liquidity Trends</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="grey4">
<td class="firstcol">Saar-all</td>
<td colspan="3">Euro Measures (E13): Money
&amp; Credit</td>
<td colspan="3">G-10 Major Markets: Money</td>
<td>Memo</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364;-Supply M2</td>
<td>Credit: Resid</td>
<td>Loans</td>
<td>$US M2</td>
<td>&#163;&#163;UK M4</td>
<td>&#165;&#165;Jpn M2+Cds</td>
<td>OIL:WTI</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">3-MO</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>-3.7%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>355.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">6-MO</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>162.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">12-MO</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>9.0%</td>
<td>13.1%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>-47.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">2Yr</td>
<td>8.1%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>12.3%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">3Yr</td>
<td>8.7%</td>
<td>8.9%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>12.5%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="8">Real Balances: deflated by
Own CPI. Oil deflated by US CPI</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">3-MO</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>-5.8%</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>340.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">6-MO</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>155.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">12-MO</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>10.3%</td>
<td>11.1%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>-47.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">2Yr</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>9.2%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">3Yr</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>6.9%</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>9.5%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="8">Japan CPI for June is an estimate;
it uses the May value to produce the real balance figure.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

</body></html>

BANKS, MONEY, CREDIT- A number of reports are in the news today about banking sector issues in lending. With the EMU money and credit measures just out it’s an appropriate time to survey the background for lending. The German Zew [...]

Tight Money Isn’t Funny: EMU Money Growth Continues To Decelerate

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

US economy expected to outperform other major economies in 2025

Only modest evidence of AI-related surge in US productivity growth

Previous Trump tariffs fading. A boost from new tariffs ahead?

Heavy US manufacturing states underperforming while Sun Belt states outperforming

Rising long-term yields a global phenomenon

US financial market concerns shifting from growth to inflation

Economic activity is picking up in the US but remains lackluster abroad

Policy uncertainty has surged since the US national elections.

Recent turnaround in US economic surprises leading to increases in rate-cut expectations

The outlook has brightened in the US, while it has dimmed for other major economies

Headline US PCE inflation elevated by sticky services prices

US and global equity prices have recently diverged

US leading global upturn in economic surprises

Blue Chip forecasters look for further significant monetary easing apart from Japan

Recent rise in global supply chain pressures could augur a pickup in global inflation pressures

Underperforming German economy generating increased policy uncertainty relative to Europe and 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

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

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

250430N1.jpg

250430O1.jpg

Real GDP eased 0.3% SAAR (+2.1% y/y) during the first quarter of 2025 after increasing 2.4% in Q4’24 and 3.1% in Q3’24. A 0.4% increase had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. It was the first decline since Q1 2022.

Foreign trade subtracted 4.83 percentage points from growth last quarter as imports surged 41.3% (13.4% y/y) ahead of tariffs, which began to come into effect in the first quarter. The rise followed a 1.9% decline in Q4’24. Exports rose 1.8% (3.0% y/y) after easing 0.2% in Q4. Inventories added 2.25 percentage points to growth after subtracting 0.84 percentage point from Q4 growth.

Real final sales to domestic purchasers grew 2.3% (2.9% y/y) in Q1 after rising 3.0% in Q4. Personal consumption expenditures rose 1.8% (3.1% y/y) following a 4.0% gain. Durable goods spending fell 3.4% (+5.3% y/y) after surging 12.4% in Q4. Motor vehicle purchases declined 11.1% (+5.5% y/y) after strengthening 19.7% in Q4. Spending on home furnishings & appliances gained 1.5% (6.1% y/y) following a 5.4% rise. Recreational goods & vehicle outlays rose 2.5% (7.0% y/y) last quarter after a 13.9% Q4 increase.

Nondurable goods outlays rose 2.7% (3.0% y/y) following 3.1% growth in Q4. Apparel spending increased 6.7% (2.5% y/y) following a 5.0% rise. Food & beverage buying gained 2.5% (2.3% y/y) after a 1.8% increase. Gasoline & fuel oil purchases increased 4.6% (3.4% y/y) after falling 2.0% in Q4.

Spending on services increased 2.4% last quarter (2.7% y/y) after a 3.0% gain. Outlays on housing & utilities increased 3.4% (1.8% y/y) after rising 1.1% in Q4. Health care expenditures rose 4.0% (4.8% y/y) following a 4.7% strengthening. Transportation outlays increased 5.3% (4.6% y/y) after a 3.7% rise while recreation spending rose 4.7% (2.8% y/y) following a 4.5% rise. Restaurant & hotel expenditures declined 2.1% (+0.5% y/y) following a 2.8% rise. Financial services expenditures rose 1.9% (2.0% y/y) after a 3.1% Q4 increase.

Business fixed investment increased 9.8% (3.6% y/y) following a 3.0% decline in Q4. Expenditures on structures rose 0.4% (-0.4% y/y) after a 2.9% increase. Expenditures on producers’ durable equipment jumped 22.5% (8.0% y/y) after falling 8.7%.  Outlays on information processing equipment soared 69.3% (18.9% y/y) following a 7.3% decline. Industrial equipment investment fell 1.4% (-0.3% y/y) after easing 0.9%. Intellectual property product spending rose 4.1% (1.8% y/y) following a 0.5% decline. 

Residential structures investment increased 1.3% (-0.1% y/y) in Q1 after a 5.5% Q4 rise.

250430P1.jpg

250430Q1.jpg

Government spending fell 1.5% (+2.4% y/y) after a 3.1% Q4 rise. Federal government expenditures declined 5.1% (+2.9% y/y) after rising 4.0% in Q4. National defense expenditures declined 8.0% (+4.0% y/y) after increasing 4.8% in Q4. State & local government spending rose 0.8% (2.1% y/y) following a 2.5% rise.

The GDP price index rose 3.7% (2.6% y/y) after increasing 2.3% in Q4. It was the largest increase since Q4’22. A 2.4% increase had been expected. The PCE chain price index increased 3.6% (2.5% y/y) following a 2.4% rise. The PCE price index excluding food and energy rose 3.5% (2.8% y/y) after increasing 2.6% in Q4. The business fixed investment price index rose 0.4% (1.8% y/y) after 1.5% rise. The residential price index strengthened 3.9% (3.2% y/y) after a 1.9% rise while the government price index increased 4.7% (2.8% y/y) following a 2.1% rise.

The GDP data can be found in Haver’s **USECON** and **USNA** databases. **USNA** contains virtually all of the Bureau of Economic Analysis detail in the national accounts. The Action Economics consensus estimates can be found in **AS1REPNA**.

250430R1.jpg

250430S1.jpg

- Decline in GDP is first in three years.
- Foreign trade subtracts substantially ahead of tariffs.
- Domestic final demand growth weakens.
- Price index strengthens with higher core PCE prices.

U.S. GDP Unexpectedly Declines in Q1’25; Prices Strengthen

Michael J. Moran

250430A.jpg

250430B.jpg

High-side readings on the price indexes for personal consumption expenditures in January and February caused some concern about emerging price pressure, especially with some policies of the Trump administration possibly adding to the upward force. However, March brought notable relief, with the headline price index falling slightly (-0.04%). A marked decline in energy prices was helpful (-2.7%), but core prices also were subdued, increasing less than 0.1%.  Year-over-year changes were still above the Fed’s target of 2%, but only barely so for the headline measure (2.3%). The core index backed away from the reading of 3.0% in February, but the latest reading of 2.7% was in line with observations in the past year, and still uncomfortably above target.

Consumers roused from a winter slumber in March, with nominal outlays increasing 0.7%. With inflation restrained, real outlays also posted a gain of 0.7%. Spending on durable gods stood out, with real outlays advancing 3.2%. Real outlays for both nondurable goods and services rose 0.4%, a solid pace. Signs of life were certainly welcome after an average decline of 0.1% in January and February. The March rebound left growth of 1.8% (annual rate) in the first quarter.

The brisk increase in spending in March was supported by a solid gain in personal income (0.5% in both nominal and real terms). Growth in wage income was firm at 0.5%, while proprietors’ income was robust with a gain of 1.8% (not annualized!). The farm sector led the advance in proprietors’ income, but the nonfarm sector also was strong (0.6%).

The personal income and consumption figures are available in Haver’s **USECON** database with detail in the **USNA** database. The Action Economics forecasts are in **AS1REPNA**.

250430C.jpg

250430D.jpg

- Price pressure eases.
- Spending rebounds after two soft months.

Personal Income, Consumption, and Prices in March

250430F20.jpg

250430G20.jpg

The Pending Home Sales Index, a forward-looking home sales measure based on contract signings, from the National Association of Realtors rose 6.1% to 76.5 (-0.6% y/y) during March after rising a little-revised 2.1% in February. These changes followed a 4.6% January decline.

The rise in March sales occurred as the rate on a 30-year mortgage eased to an average 6.65% from 6.84% in February. This rate was well above a low of 2.68% averaged in December 2020.

Pending home sales were up in most regions of the country. Sales in the Midwest rose 4.9% (1.4% y/y) last month after rising 1.8% in February. Sales in the South increased 9.8% (-0.4% y/y) following a 5.8% February rise. Sales in the West improved 4.8% (-2.0% y/y) after falling 3.0% in February. Sales in the Northeast were off 0.5% (-3.0% y/y) in March after falling 0.9% in February.

The pending home sales index measures sales at the time the contract for the purchase of an existing home is signed, similar to the Census Bureau's new home sales data. In contrast, the National Association of Realtors' existing home sales data are recorded when the sale is closed, which is usually a couple of months after the sales contract has been signed. In developing the pending home sales index, the NAR found that the level of monthly sales contract activity leads the level of closed existing home sales by about two months.

The series dates back to 2001 and are available in Haver's **PREALTOR** database. Weekly mortgage interest rates from the Mortgage Bankers Association can be found in the **WEEKLY** database.

- Sales rise to highest level in four months.
- Strength is evident throughout most of country.

U.S. Pending Home Sales Surge in March

Sandy Batten

250430F5.jpg

250430G5.jpg

The employment cost index (ECI) for civilian workers, arguably the most accurate measure of labor compensation in the United States, rose 0.9% q/q (3.6% y/y) in Q1, the same quarterly increase as in last year’s Q4, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The quarterly gains have fluctuated between 0.8% and 1.0% for the past six quarters. The Action Economics Forecast Survey had expected a 0.9% q/q increase and a 3.5% y/y gain.

Wages and salaries for civilian workers rose 0.8% q/q (3.5% y/y) in Q1, down from 1.0% q/q in Q4. This tied the Q3 2024 quarterly rise as the smallest increase since Q2 2021. It was also the smallest y/y increase since Q2 2021. Benefits increased by an outsized 1.2% q/q (3.9% y/y) in Q1 versus 0.8% q/q in Q4. This is the largest quarterly gain since Q2 2022. In general, employment cost gains remain above the pace observed prior to the pandemic but are slowing gradually.

Private industry workers’ compensation rose 0.8% q/q (3.4% y/y) in Q1, down from 0.9% q/q (3.6% y/y) in Q4. Wages and salaries for private industry workers increased 0.8% q/q (3.4% y/y) in Q1 versus 0.8% q/q (3.7% y/y) in Q4. The quarterly gain in Q1 tied that in Q3 2024 as the smallest increase since Q4 2020. Benefits for private industry workers jumped 1.2% q/q (3.6% y/y). the largest quarterly gain since Q2 2022. The acceleration in benefits in Q1 was primarily in service-producing industries.

Compensation in private goods-producing industries increased 1.0% q/q (3.2% y/y) in Q1, the largest quarterly gain in five quarters, versus a 0.7% q/q increase in Q4. Compensation in construction jumped 1.3% q/q, its largest quarterly increase since Q2 2022, up from a 0.6% q/q gain in Q4. Manufacturing compensation growth slowed to 0.7% q/q, its slowest quarterly advance since Q4 2020, from 0.8% q/q in Q4. Compensation in private service-producing industries increased 0.8% q/q (3.5% y/y), down slightly from a 0.9% q/q gain in Q4. Compensation in education and health services jumped 1.3% q/q, its largest quarterly gain since Q3 2023. In contrast, compensation in other services edged up 0.1% q/q in Q1, its smallest quarterly advance since before the pandemic.

The employment cost index measures the change in the cost of labor, free from the influence of employment shifts across occupations and industries. It is provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and is available in Haver’s **USECON** database. Consensus estimates from the Action Economics Forecast Survey are in Haver’s **AS1REPNA** database.

250430H5.jpg

250430I5.jpg

- Compensation grew 0.9 q/q in Q1, the same pace as in Q4.
- Wage growth slowed to 0.8% q/q while benefits surged 1.2% q/q, their largest quarterly increase since Q2 2022.

Employment Cost Growth Steady in Q1 2025

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

250430J4.jpg

250430K4.jpg

The ADP National Employment Report indicated that nonfarm private sector payrolls rose 62,000 (1.4% y/y) during April after increasing 147,000 (1.4% y/y) during March, revised from 155,000. A 124,000 April rise in ADP employment had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.

Growth in median annual pay for "job stayers" eased to 4.5% y/y during April, from 4.6% y/y in March and from 4.7% y/y in the prior two months. Manufacturing sector pay grew 4.6% y/y during April, down from 4.8% y/y in March. Construction sector pay was unchanged at 4.7% y/y. Natural resource & mining sector pay grew 4.4% y/y. Financial sector pay rose 5.1% y/y, while education & health services pay rose 4.7% y/y. Leisure & hospitality pay also increased 4.7% y/y. Professional & business service sector pay increased 4.3% y/y as did trade, transportation & utilities pay. Information pay rose 4.1% y/y. Median annual pay for “job changers” rose 6.9% y/y after 6.7% y/y in March.

Small business hiring (less than 50 employees) rose 11,000 (0.6% y/y) after rising 18,000 (0.6% y/y) in March, revised down from 52,000. Employment at medium-sized firms (50-499,000 employees) rose 40,000 (1.1% y/y) after rising 43,000 (1.1% y/y). Large business hiring (500+ employees) rose 12,000 (3.4% y/y) in April, after rising 61,000 (3.6% y/y) in March, revised from 59,000.

Goods-producing employment rose 26,000 (1.3% y/y) in April, after rising 16,000 (1.3% y/y) during March, revised from 24,000. Manufacturing jobs rose 4,000 (-0.2% y/y) after rising 17,000 (-0.3% y/y) in March. The number of construction sector jobs rose 16,000 (3.4% y/y) in April, following a 2,000 (3.6% y/y) March increase, revised from 6,000. Natural resources & mining jobs rose 6,000 (2.8% y/y) in April after falling 3,000 (+1.9% y/y) in March.

The number of service-producing jobs rose 34,000 (1.4% y/y) during April, following a rise of 131,000 (1.4% y/y) in March. Professional & business services employment fell 2,000 (0.6% y/y) after rising 46,000 (0.7% y/y) in the prior month, revised from 57,000. Employment in the financial industry rose 20,000 (2.1% y/y) in April, after rising 38,000 (2.0% y/y) in March. Leisure and hospitality employment increased 27,000 (3.0% y/y), following a 23,000 (2.9% y/y) March increase, revised from 17,000. The number of education & health care jobs fell 23,000 (1.6% y/y) in April, following a 15,000 (1.8% y/y) rise in March, revised from 12,000. Information sector employment fell 8,000 (-0.1% y/y) after a rise of 3,000 (0.2% y/y) in March. The number of jobs in trade, transportation & utilities rose 21,000 (0.4% y/y) in April, after falling 4,000 (+0.4% y/y) in March, revised from a 6,000 fall. Employment in “other” services rose fell 1,000 (+3.2% y/y) following a 10,000 (3.4% y/y) rise in March, revised from 11,000.

By region, employment in the Northeast increased 10,000 (1.9% y/y) in April, following an increase of 95,000 (2.0% y/y) in March, revised from 89,000. Employment in the Midwest rose 42,000 (1.5% y/y) after a gain of 84,000 (1.4% y/y) in March, revised from 81,000. In the South, employment rose 3,000 (1.3% y/y) during April, after rising 10,000 (1.4% y/y) in March, revised from 27,000. In the West, employment rose 9,000 (0.6% y/y) after declining 43,000 (+0.6% y/y), revised from a 41,000 decline in March.

The ADP National Employment Report and Pay Insights data can be found in Haver's **USECON** database. Historical figures date back to January 2010 for private employment. Pay data date back to October 2020. The expectation figure is available in Haver's **AS1REPNA** database.

250430L4.jpg

250430M4.jpg

- Employment increase is modest in both services & factory sectors.
- Wage growth for “job stayers” moderates.
- Small and medium-sized business employment slows.

Economy in Brief: July 2009

Jump to: