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/020719b.jpg" width="353">
Consumer prices rose less than expected last month. Consensus expectations were for a 0.2% rise. Less food &amp; energy, prices also rose less than the expected 0.2%.
Price gains across categories were notably weak, especially for services. The 0.1% gain in core services was the second like gain this year and reflected a weak 0.1% (3.6% y/y) gain in shelter prices, a 0.2% (4.9% y/y) gain in medical care services and a decline in public transportation (-2.3% y/y).
Core goods prices were quite tame. Home furnishings and operation prices fell for the fourth month this year. New vehicle prices fell for the sixth consecutive month. Apparel prices fell for the fourth month this year.
Energy prices were unchanged reflecting slight gains for gasoline and fuel oil but lower prices for piped gas and electricity.

<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/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM">Consumer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total&nbsp;</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Services less Energy</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Energy</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>-11.3%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>16.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Food &amp; Beverages</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Trade Deficit Another Record in May 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 19, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020719a.jpg" width="353">
The U.S. foreign trade deficit deepened more than expected in May to a new record. April&#39;s deficit was revised deeper. 
So far in 2Q02 the monthly trade deficit has averaged $36.9B versus $31.6B in 1Q. Last year the trade deficit averaged $29.9B per month.
Exports rose less than expected reflecting a weak gain in capital goods (-13.6% y/y) and a decline in nonauto consumer goods (-12.4% y/y).
Imports rose sharply reflecting across the board strong gains.Imports of nonauto capital goods rose 0.7% (-3.2% y/y). Imports of nonauto consumer goods also were strong, up 2.3% (8.5% y/y). Automotive imports also surged and are up 13.2% y/y.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EE/@EE03/@EE03.HTM">Foreign Trade</a></th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Trade Deficit</td>
<td>$37.6B</td>
<td>$36.1B</td>
<td>$30.1B(5/01)</td>
<td>$358.3B</td>
<td>$378.7B</td>
<td>$262.2B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Exports - Goods &amp; Services</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>-6.3%</td>
<td>-6.2%</td>
<td>11.2%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Imports - Goods &amp; Services</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>-6.0%</td>
<td>18.3%</td>
<td>10.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Budget Surplus Down Vs. Last June 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller </a> July 19, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020719c.jpg" width="353">
The June US budget deteriorated somewhat less than expected. A monthly surplus of $25.0B had been expected versus last year&#39;s June surplus of $31.9B. The June fiscal YTD deficit for 2002 was the largest since 1995. 
Receipts rose sharply m/m due to a surge in individual tax payments. Individual tax payments fell 19.6% fiscal YTD as a result of higher unemployment. Fiscal YTD corporate tax receipts fell 15.9% versus last year. 
Federal expenditures fell m/m but remained up 7.5% versus last fiscal year. Higher spending on defense (12.4% YTD), education (13.2% YTD) and income security (13.6% YTD).

<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">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Fiscal YTD</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Budget Balance</td>
<td>$29.1B</td>
<td>$-80.6B</td>
<td>$-118.0B</td>
<td>$127.2B</td>
<td>$236.9B</td>
<td>$124.4B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Revenues</td>
<td>$182.6B</td>
<td>$102.5B</td>
<td>-11.4%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Outlays</td>
<td>$153.6B</td>
<td>$183.1B</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Consumer prices rose less than expected last month. Consensus expectations were for a 0.2% rise. Less food & energy, prices also rose less than the expected 0.2%. Price gains across categories were notably weak, especially for [...]

CPI Rose Modestly

<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/020718c.jpg" width="353">
The Philadelphia Fed&#146;s index of general business conditions for July fell quite a bit more than expected following an outsized June gain.
New and unfilled orders fell sharply along with shipments. Delivery lead times shortened substantially. 
The business conditions index reflects a separate survey question, not the components. 
Pricing pressure fell moderately, the first monthly easing since last October. The pricing index level nevertheless remained elevated.

<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/@S504/@S504.HTM">Philadelphia Fed Business Outlook</a></th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">General Activity Index</td>
<td>6.6</td>
<td>22.2</td>
<td>-12.4</td>
<td>-17.3</td>
<td>8.2</td>
<td>13.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid Index</td>
<td>17.9</td>
<td>22.9</td>
<td>-5.0</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>27.1</td>
<td>10.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Leading Indicators Unchanged 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 18, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020718b.jpg" width="353">
The Composite Index of Leading Economic Indicators was unchanged last month, as expected. The May gain was revised up. 
The ratio of coincident to lagging indicators rose for the eighth month in nine. The ratio is an indication that excesses in the economy are falling relative to the economy&#39;s actual performance.
The coincident indicators index was at the same level in June as in January 2001. The lagging indicators fell 7.0% during that period.
60% of the leaders&#39; component series rose last month versus 70% that rose in May. Longer hours worked, a decline in claims for jobless insurance, a rise in the money supply and improved vendor performance had the largest positive influence.
The Leading index is based on eight previously reported economic data series and two that are estimated.

<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/BCI/BCI.HTM">Business Cycle Indicators</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Leading</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Coincident</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Lagging</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-5.1%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Initial Jobless Insurance Claims Down Sharply 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 18, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020718a.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance fell more than expected in the latest week. Claims were their lowest since February of last year. The prior week&#39;s level was revised up slightly.
The claims figure is for the July nonfarm payroll survey period. Initial claims were down about 20,000 from the June survey period. 
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance fell slightly but the prior week&#39;s level was revised down sharply. Continuing claims are down 6.3% from the peak in early May.
The four-week moving average of initial claims fell to 391,000, -1.6% y/y. 
The insured rate of unemployment was unchanged at 2.8%.

<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">7/13/02</th>
<th scope="col">7/6/02</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>379.0</td>
<td>407.0</td>
<td>6.4%</td>
<td>405.8</td>
<td>299.8</td>
<td>297.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>3,591</td>
<td>17.5%</td>
<td>3,021</td>
<td>2,114</td>
<td>2,186</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Philadelphia Feds index of general business conditions for July fell quite a bit more than expected following an outsized June gain. New and unfilled orders fell sharply along with shipments. Delivery lead times shortened [...]

Philadelphia Fed Index Fell

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020717a.jpg" width="353">
Housing starts fell about as expected last month following a strong May gain that was little revised. 
Single-family starts fell 2.9% following a strong 10.2% May gain. During the first six months of 2002 starts were up 5.8% from the first six months of last year. The level of single-family starts during the period was the highest for any six months since the late 1970s.
Multi-family starts fell 6.7% and have moved sideways since last year.
Starts in each of the country&#39;s regions fell except the Northeast where they rose to the highest level since last April.
Building permits rose for the third month in a row.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E901/@E90101/@E90101.HTM">Housing Starts (000s, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>1,672</td>
<td>1,735</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>1,603</td>
<td>1,573</td>
<td>1,647</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Single Family</td>
<td>1,350</td>
<td>1,390</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>1,273</td>
<td>1,232</td>
<td>1,306</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Multi Family</td>
<td>322</td>
<td>345</td>
<td>-5.3%</td>
<td>330</td>
<td>341</td>
<td>341</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Housing starts fell about as expected last month following a strong May gain that was little revised. Single-family starts fell 2.9% following a strong 10.2% May gain. During the first six months of 2002 starts were up 5.8% from the [...]

Housing Starts Down

<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>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020716b.jpg" width="353">
Industrial production rose more than expected last month, up twice the Consensus expectation for a 0.4% rise. May&#39;s gain was revised slightly higher. Factory sector output rose 0.8% (2.7% YTD) following a 0.6% May gain that was revised up.
Higher output of motor vehicles and parts, up 2.5%, led the June output gain. High tech output also was strong, up 1.7% (13.7% YTD). Excluding high tech, factory output rose 0.7% (2.5% YTD), the sixth monthly gain this year.
Output of consumer goods rose a strong 0.8% following the weak 0.1% May gain. Output of home electronics rose 0.3% following a 4.2% gain in May. Output of appliances and furniture retreated 2.9% following the 2.6% May surge. Nondurable output rose moderately following two months of decline.
Output of business equipment rose modestly for the second month in a row. Gains have been restrained all year by falling output of transportation equipment.
Capacity utilization rose for the sixth month this year, but remained down sharply from the late 1990s.

<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">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Industrial Production</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-3.7%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capacity Utilization</td>
<td>76.1%</td>
<td>75.6%</td>
<td>76.7%(6/01)</td>
<td>76.8%</td>
<td>81.8%</td>
<td>81.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Weekly Chain Store Sales Fell Slightly 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 16, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020716a.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales fell 0.3% following a 0.7% surge the week prior according to the BTM-UBSW survey.
Early-July sales were 0.2% above the June average.
The leading indicator of chain store sales published by BTM rose in early July and began the month slightly ahead of the June average.
During the last five years there has been a 61% correlation between the year-to-year percent change in monthly chain store sales and the change in sales of general merchandise, apparel and furniture.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">BTM-UBSW (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">7/13/02</th>
<th scope="col">7/6/02</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Retail Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>414.4</td>
<td>415.6</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Greenspan Suggests Economy Improving, Inflation Low 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 16, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020716c.jpg" width="353">
In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan suggested that the US economy is improving, but rates won&#39;t rise soon with inflation low. 
&quot;... the fundamentals are in place for a return to sustained healthy growth: Imbalances in inventories and capital goods appear largely to have been worked off; inflation is quite low and is expected to remain so; and productivity growth has been remarkably strong, implying considerable underlying support to household and business spending as well as potential relief from cost and price pressures. In considering policy actions this year, the Federal Open Market Committee has recognized that the accommodative stance of policy adopted last year in response to the substantial forces restraining the economy likely will not prove compatible over time with maximum sustainable growth and price stability. But, with inflation currently contained and with few signs that upward pressures are likely to develop any time soon, we have chosen to maintain that stance pending evidence that the forces inhibiting economic growth are dissipating enough to allow the strong fundamentals to show through more fully.&quot;
The complete text of the Chairman&#39;s latest report can be viewed at: <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/2002/july/testimony.htm">http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/2002/july/testimony.htm</a>



</html>

Industrial production rose more than expected last month, up twice the Consensus expectation for a 0.4% rise. May's gain was revised slightly higher. Factory sector output rose 0.8% (2.7% YTD) following a 0.6% May gain that was [...]

Industrial Production Strong

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020715a.jpg" width="353">
Total business inventories rose in May versus consensus expectations for a slight decline. The previously reported decline in April inventories was little revised.
Retail inventories, reported for the first time, rose for the fourth month this year. Nonauto retail inventories also rose and a previously reported April decline was revised to show a gain. Nonauto retail inventories have risen 0.4% YTD. 
Inventory gains were across the board amongst retail industries. Inventories of general merchandise rose for the first month since last August.
Overall business sales fell 0.4% (-0.7% y/y) after a 1.7% April gain that was little revised.
The inventory-to-sales ratio rose slightly to 1.36 but remained near a record low.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED06/@ED0601/@ED0601.HTM">Business Inventories</a></th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-5.7%</td>
<td>-6.3%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Retail</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>-5.0%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Retail excl. Autos</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-7.2%</td>
<td>-5.5%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>-8.6%</td>
<td>-8.0%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Total business inventories rose in May versus consensus expectations for a slight decline. The previously reported decline in April inventories was little revised. Retail inventories, reported for the first time, rose for the fourth [...]

Business Inventories Rose Unexpectedly

<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/020712a.jpg" width="353">
Total retail sales rose more than expected last month due to broadly based gains. May sales were revised down slightly due to a lowered estimate of auto sales. Sales excluding autos rose versus expectations for a 0.5% gain. 
Sales gains were widespread. Sales of motor vehicles rose 3.4% (-2.5% YTD). Apparel sales rose 2.0% (1.1% YTD). General merchandise sales were up 1.1% (2.9% YTD) and furniture &amp; home furnishings sales rose 0.4% (1.1% YTD).
Sales at food stores fell and sales of building materials rose a weak 0.1%.
Unit sales in June of domestic and imported light vehicles rose 5.2% to 16.48M (SAAR).

<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">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/usecon/@ED/@ED04/@ED0401/@ED0401.HTM">Retail Sales &amp; Food Services</a></td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>8.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding Autos</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Consumer Sentiment Fell Unexpectedly 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 12, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020712b.jpg" width="353">
The mid-July reading of Consumer Sentiment from the University of Michigan fell versus Consensus expectations for little change versus June.
Indexes fell for both expectations (down sharply) and current conditions.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.
During the past five years there has been a 39% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the 3-month change in real PCE.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EF/@EF14/@EF1402/@EF1402.HTM">Univ. of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mid-July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>86.5</td>
<td>92.4</td>
<td>-6.4%</td>
<td>89.2</td>
<td>107.6</td>
<td>105.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Total retail sales rose more than expected last month due to broadly based gains. May sales were revised down slightly due to a lowered estimate of auto sales. Sales excluding autos rose versus expectations for a 0.5% gain. Sales [...]

Retail Sales Recover in June

<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/020711a.jpg" width="353">
Finished producer prices rose as expected last month. It was the first increase in prices in three months. Core finished goods prices rose slightly more than expected but are up just 0.1% year to date.
Energy prices were unchanged following a decline in May. Market gasoline prices in early July are up moderately versus June.
Food prices rose slightly for the first increase in three months.
Core finished consumer goods prices rose 0.3%, the second strong increase in three months. Core nondurable goods prices have been strong but durable goods prices rose for just the second month this year. Capital goods prices rose slightly following three months of decline. 
Intermediate goods prices rose moderately. After weakness in May, a firming trend may be developing with core intermediate prices up 0.7% YTD. 
Crude goods prices fell reflecting lower energy prices. Elsewhere, the rebound in factory sector activity has lifted core crude prices 9.1% YTD.

<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">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Finished Goods</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>-3.6%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>-11.7%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>22.8%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>-9.9%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>-4.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Initial Jobless Insurance Claims Up 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 11, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020711b.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose sharply in the latest week, boosted by the annual auto industry shutdowns for plant retooling. The prior week&#39;s level, which had fallen sharply, was revised up slightly.
It was the first increase in initial claims in three weeks. 
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance fell for the seventh week in eight third week and the prior week&#39;s level was revised down.
The four-week moving average of initial claims rose slightly to 395,000, -0.1% y/y. 
The insured rate of unemployment fell slightly to 2.8%.

<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">7/6/02</th>
<th scope="col">6/29/02</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>403.0</td>
<td>387.0</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>405.8</td>
<td>299.8</td>
<td>297.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>3,639</td>
<td>22.7%</td>
<td>3,021</td>
<td>2,114</td>
<td>2,186</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Finished producer prices rose as expected last month. It was the first increase in prices in three months. Core finished goods prices rose slightly more than expected but are up just 0.1% year to date. Energy prices were unchanged [...]

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/020710a.jpg" width="353">
Prices for imported commodities fell much more than expected last month versus May. Consensus estimates were for a 0.2% gain. May figures were little revised.
Petroleum import prices fell for the first month this year. So far in July, the price of Arab Light crude oil has averaged roughly $22.64/bbl versus $22.00 in June.
Nonpetroleum import prices rose slightly for just the third month this year.
Prices for imported capital goods were unchanged and are down 1.1% YTD. Nonauto consumer goods prices were flat for the second consecutive month, down 0.6% YTD and auto prices rose slightly.
Export prices were flat, mostly reflecting a jump in food prices that were offset be sharply lower prices of capital goods.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E807/@E807.HTM">Import/Export Prices (NSA)</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Import - All Commodities</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-3.9%</td>
<td>-3.5%</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Petroleum</td>
<td>-6.6%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>-7.9%</td>
<td>-17.2%</td>
<td>66.5%</td>
<td>34.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonpetroleum</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Export - All Commodities</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
OECD Leading Indicators Suggest Positive Growth 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 10, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020710b.jpg" width="353">
Prospects for improved real economic growth recently have improved, according to the OECD Index of Leading Indicators. Since November, the index has been trending higher, although the rate of improvement has slowed somewhat in the last three months
Real economic growth in the Big Seven OECD countries surged 4.4% (AR) in 1Q02. That followed three consecutive negative growth quarters. The surge was due to strong 6.1% growth in the US as well as 5.7% growth in Japan. Growth in the European Union was 0.7% after a 0.5% 4Q decline.
In Japan, industrial production has been climbing steadily since the lows of this past winter. Production gains in Germany also have been positive but moderate.
Inflation in Big Seven countries has been tame, with the Implicit Price deflator up 1.7% y/y. A 2.9% 1Q surge followed a decline in 4Q prices. The CPI in Japan was down 0.9% y/y in May though prices may have showed signs of stabilizing in recent months.

</body>
</html>

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

Import Prices Fell Sharply

Latest PMIs show US losing momentum while RoW is gaining momentum

Sticky services prices behind sticky overall PCE inflation

Flash April PMIs point to slower growth in the US but a pickup in Europe and Japan

Outlook strengthens for US while it weakens for other major economies

Crude petroleum prices are having a big impact on inflation expectations

Inflation surprising to upside in the US; by contrast to the downside in the euro area

 Gross Domestic Income is catching up with GDP

FOMC expects GDP growth above trend over the next three years

US core CPI inflation has begun to reaccelerate

Fiscal-policy aided factory building in the U.S. provided an unusually large boost to growth last year

US consumers much more optimistic than those in the Euro area and the UK

  Job openings take a step down in 2024

Fed's super core services inflation measure pushing up core rate

Blue Chip forecasters expect significant monetary easing this year except in Japan

Euro area economy stagnating while US grows above trend

Chinese and Japanese equity markets are diverging markedly

Chinese population declines in 2023 for second consecutive year

Outlook for US GDP growth on the rise; declining in euro area, Japan and China

There are still 1.4 job openings for every unemployed person in the US

US PCE inflation over the past six months has slowed to the Fed's 2% target

FOMC think rate hikes are done and looks for 75bps of decline in 2024

Weaker economic data surprises pushing down US interest rates

Recent disinflation has been widespread across Europe and North America

Recent decline in US inflation expectations helping to lower interest rates

China is losing its luster as foreign direct investment heads out

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

240517f5.jpg

240517g5.jpg

The U.S. Leading Economic Index fell 0.6% (-5.4% y/y) during April following an unrevised 0.3% March decline, according to a report by The Conference Board. These two changes followed a 0.2% February improvement. A 0.3% April shortfall had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.

Five of ten components contributed negatively to the overall index in April including the ISM new orders index, building permits, stock prices, the spread between the 10-year Treasury and the Fed funds rate, as well as consumer expectations for business/economic conditions. Initial claims for unemployment insurance and the leading credit index contributed positively. New orders for capital goods and new orders for consumer goods made minimal positive contributions to the index change while the length of the average workweek had no effect on the leading index change.

A 0.2% April increase in the Coincident Economic Index followed a 0.2% March gain, revised from 0.3%. These gains came after a 0.3% February rise. Three of the four components made positive contributions to the coincident index in April, including the changes in personal income less transfers, nonagricultural payroll employment and real manufacturing & trade sales. The change in industrial production had no effect on the coincident indicators.

The Lagging Economic Index rose 0.4% (1.4% y/y) after unrevised stability in March and a 0.2% February increase. Three of the index’s seven components made positive contributions last month including the average duration of unemployment, commercial & industrial loans outstanding and the ratio of consumer credit to income. The six-month change in unit labor costs made a minimally negative contribution while the six-month change in the services CPI, banks’ prime rate and the ratio of business inventories-to-sales were unchanged.

The ratio of the coincident index to the lagging index is also viewed as a leading indicator of economic activity. This measure fell 0.2% in April, following two straight monthly increases. It was 0.8% below its most recent peak in December of last year.

The Conference Board figures are available in Haver's **BCI** database; the components are available there, and most are also in **USECON**. The expectations are in the **AS1REPNA** database. Visit the Conference Board's [website](https://www.conference-board.org/us/) for coverage of leading indicator series from around the world.



240517h5.jpg

240517i5.jpg

- Leading index decline is largest in six months.
- Coincident Indicators continue to increase moderately.
- Lagging index strengthens after holding steady.


U.S. Leading Economic Indicators Fall Sharply in April

Robert Brusca

240517e.jpg

**EMU Inflation Trends Offer Hope and Hype**- Inflation in the European Monetary Union rose by 0.2% month-to-month in April, the same as in March. Core inflation, however, picked up, rising by 0.4% but that was after being flat in March. The sequential growth rates from 12-months to six-months to three-months show the headline inflation rate at 2.4% over 12-months falling to 2% over 6-months, then rising to a 3% annual rate over three-months. The core rate for the monetary union rose 2.9% over 12-months at a 2.7% annual rate over six-months, it steps up to a 2.8% annual rate over three-months. Headline inflation is resisting moving down to the 2% level consistently while core inflation appears to be stuck just short of 3%. Whether these trends are good enough depends on whether the ECB sees itself implementing precision-guided policy or playing horseshoes and hand grenades.

**Headline Inflation: four largest EMU members**
Statistics for the largest four members of the monetary union show inflation worse in April on balance than for the monetary union as a whole. German inflation rose by 0.8% in April, in France it rose by 0.7%, in Spain at rose by 0.5%, while in Italy it rose by 0.3%. These are month-to-month gains. However, these figures followed either flat or declining inflation (price-) performance in March for each of these four countries. The progression of inflation for Germany, France, Italy, and Spain, however, still shows inflation resisting a consistent move down to 2%. German inflation runs at 2.6% over 12-months steps up to 2.7% over 6-months and reaches a 2.9% annual rate over 3-months. France’s 12-month inflation of 2.4% steps down to 2.2% over 6-months, then rises to a 3.2% annual rate over 3-months. In Italy, headline inflation is 1.1% over 12-months, similarly at a 1% annual rate over 6-months, then rises to a 1.7% annual rate over 3-months. Spain's inflation falls from 3.6% over 12-months to 3.2% over 6-months to 2.3% over 3-months- finally a European Monetary Union large country member with persistently decelerating inflation! On balance Italian inflation over 3-months is under the target that the ECB has for the monetary union as a whole, Spain’s inflation is transitioning from 12-months to 6-months to 3-months down close to the 2% mark, while Germany and France continue to show stubbornly too-high results for their headline inflation rates. All-in-all, that is not a great background to support a rate cut.

**Core inflation and its trends offer hope**
Core inflation rates produce much more beneficial results. Still, in April month-to-month core inflation increases are generally excessive for these four members. But that follows declining inflation – falling prices- for core rates in March. Germany is an exception to this pattern, but it still follows the rule of improvement because its inflation progress is flipped between the two months. Looking at sequential growth rates for core inflation or ex-energy inflation for these large country members, we find that inflation is persistently decelerating from 12-months to 6-months to 3-months for all of them except for France. France shows a pickup in inflation over 3-months compared to 6-months as core inflation rises to a 3-month rate of 2.9% after posting a 2.1% pace over 6-months. The 3-month pace for inflation x-energy for Germany is 2.1%, the core for Italy is at 1.7%, and the core for Spain is at 1.8%. All three-monthly core rates are at the doorstep or within the ECB's target range for headline EMU inflation. France is the exception. The 12-month core inflation rates are all above target but show signs of coming into line; German and French year-over-year inflation rates decline in April compared to March the Italian rate is unchanged year-over-year at 2.3% on the monthly comparison, while only Spain has an acceleration compared to a month ago and that's to a 3.3% rise from 3.1% in March.

**Is it good enough?**
The speed of inflation’s drop- Core inflation rates would seem to build a good enough base for the ECB to move ahead with rate cuts if it decides it wants to go that way. If it wants to be surer and clearer about reducing inflation it will pay more attention to the headline rates that are excessive- especially since no inflation metric is falling particularly fast anymore. The risk over ‘overshooting’ on the downside seems remote. Oil prices as measured by Brent in euros rose by 4.3% month-to-month in April after rising 1.6% in March. However, year-over-year Brent prices are down by 3.3%, so the impulse from oil is mixed across tenors. 

ECB credibility- A different view of reality looks at ECB inflation performance over five-years and finds all the metrics quite unacceptable. Over the last five years the compounded inflation rate for the monetary union is 3.7% and for the core it's 2.8%. For Germany it's 4.1%, for France it's 3.3%, and for Italy and Spain it's 3.4%. The core or X energy inflation rates do not behave much better, Germany is at 3.3% over five years on its core measure, France at 2.7%, Spain at 3%, and Italy at 2.5%. If the ECB is concerned about its credibility, then it's going to want to make sure that it gets inflation down inside of its target soon because the five-year compound inflation rates are so far over their target that clearly a central bank that claims to target 2% inflation cannot look at that five-year record and consider policies to have been a success. 

**Driving the road ahead**- Looking ahead it's very possible that inflation is on a downtrend and that policy is moving inflation in the right direction; the question remains concerns the certainty of that conclusion and the question ‘is inflation moving down fast enough?’  The ECB is going to have to measure the impact on its credibility against its desire to hit its inflation target in the short run and pay some attention to the effect that policy has on economic growth rates in the monetary union. On that score, unemployment rates throughout the European Monetary Union are still extremely low in historic comparisons… but, there has been a new sensitivity across central banks globally as they try to reduce their inflation rates ‘to target levels’ without having much impact on the unemployment rates at all - even though unemployment rates are in many places near some version of historic lows. Time will tell whether this sort of prevarication in inflation fighting that coddles the unemployment rate that is already so low is wise or has turned out to be foolhardy. 


240517.jpg

Europe

EMU Inflation Trends Offer Hope and Hype- Inflation in the European Monetary Union rose by 0.2% month-to-month in April, the same as in March. Core inflation, however, picked up, rising by 0.4% but that was after being flat in March. The sequential growth rates from 12-months to six-months to three-months show the headline inflation rate at 2.4% over 12-months falling to 2% over 6-months, then rising to a 3% annual rate over three-months. The core rate for the monetary union rose 2.9% over 12-months at a 2.7% annual rate over six-months, it steps up to a 2.8% annual rate over three-months. Headline inflation is resisting moving down to the 2% level consistently while core inflation appears to be stuck just short of 3%. Whether these trends are good enough depends on whether the ECB sees itself implementing precision-guided policy or playing horseshoes and hand grenades.

EMU Inflation Holds the line 2% Beckons

240516f4.jpg

240516g4.jpg

Total housing starts increased 5.7% (-0.6% y/y) during April to 1.360 million units (SAAR) after falling 16.8% in March to 1.287 million units, revised from 1.321 million. Starts in February rose a little-revised 12.4% to 1.546 million units. Starts remained 24.6% below the most recent peak of 1.803 million in April 2022. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected 1.420 million starts in April.

Housing starts by type were mixed last month. Starts of single-family units eased 0.4% (+17.7% y/y) to 1.031 million after declining 8.7% in March to 1.035 million, revised from 1.022 million. They reached a high of 1.286 units in December 2020. Multi-family starts increased 30.6% (-33.1% y/y) in April to 329,000 after falling 38.8% to 252,000 in March, revised from 299,000. They reached a high of 624,000 units in November 2022.

Regional activity was mixed in April. In the Northeast, the level of starts fell 22.6% (-43.8% y/y) to 72,000 units after declining 21.8% in March and 10.5% in February. Starts in the Midwest rose 19.1% (3.4% y/y) to 181,000 following a 36.4% March decline. Starts in the South improved 10.1% (4.9% y/y) to 799,000 after a 15.9% March decline. In the West, starts fell 2.5% (+1.7% y/y) to 308,000 after declining in each of the prior three months.

Building permits declined 3.0% (-2.0% y/y) in April 1.440 million units after falling 5.0% to 1.485 million in March, revised from 1.458 million. It was the lowest level of permits since December 2022. Single-family permits eased 0.8% (+11.4% y/y) to 976,000 in April following a 4.2% March decline and a 0.4% February slip. Multi-family permits weakened 7.4% (-21.9% y/y) to 464,000, after falling 6.5% in March.

The housing starts and permits figures can be found in Haver's **USECON** database. The expectations figure is contained in the **AS1REPNA** database.



240516h4.jpg

240516i4.jpg

- Single-family starts decline but multi-family surge.
- Starts are mixed throughout the country.
- Building permits fall to lowest level in over one year.


U.S. Housing Starts Rise Modestly in April; Building Permits Fall

Sandy Batten

240516r2.jpg

240516s2.jpg

Total industrial production was unchanged in April from March and 0.4% lower than a year ago. The previously released 0.4% rise in March was revised down to a meager 0.1% monthly gain. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected a 0.1% increase in production last month. Manufacturing production slumped 0.3% m/m (-0.5% y/y) after a downwardly revised 0.2% monthly gain in March (initially reported as 0.5%). 

Mining activity declined for the third time in the past four months, falling 0.6% (-1.3% /y) following an upwardly revised 1.1% m/m decline in March (previously -1.4% m/m). Utilities output was the only positive part of industrial activity in April, rising 2.8% m/m (+2.3% y/y) on top of a downwardly revised 1.6% monthly gain in March (previously 2.0% m/m).

Amid the monthly volatility, manufacturing output has been relatively flat over the past nine months. In fact, the index level in April was 99.4, exactly the same as in August 2023. The manufacturing sector has been one of the most adversely affected by the Fed’s interest rate hikes. Since April 2022 (just after the Fed initiated it rate hikes in March 2022), manufacturing output has fallen 1.4%. Within the manufacturing sector in April, durable goods production fell 0.5% m/m, its first monthly decline in three months, led by a 2.0% m/m decline in motor vehicle production and a 1.9% m/m drop in the production of electrical equipment and appliances. Production of nondurable goods edged down 0.1% m/m in April following a 0.2% monthly increase in March. Production of selected high-technology industries increased 1.0% m/m. By contrast, petroleum and coal products output slumped 4.4%m/m, the first monthly decline in three months.

Manufacturing output excluding motor vehicles slipped 01% m/m in April after being unchanged in March. Manufacturing excluding selected high-tech industries fell 0.3% m/m in April versus a 0.1% monthly gain in March. Manufacturing output excluding both selected high-tech industries and motor vehicles decreased 0.2% m/m, its sixth monthly decline in the past seven months. Production of consumer goods inched up 0.1% m/m in April following a 0.5% monthly gain in March. Output of business equipment fell 0.5% m/m on top of a 0.2% monthly decline in March. 

Production of construction supplies fell 1.0% m/m in April, the sixth monthly decline in the past seven months. Materials output edged up 0.1% m/m in April, just offsetting a 0.1% m/m decline in March.

Total capacity utilization slipped to 78.4% in April from a slightly upward revised 78.5% in March (previously 78.4%). The April reading was exactly as expected by the Actions Economics Forecast Survey. The capacity utilization rate for manufacturing fell significantly to 76.9% from 77.2%. By contrast, the capacity rate for utilities rose to 71.0 from 69.2.

Industrial production and capacity data are in Haver’s **USECON** database. Additional detail on production and capacity utilization can be found in the **IP** database. The expectations figures come from the **AS1REPNA** database.



240516t2.jpg

240516u2.jpg

- IP was unchanged in April with manufacturing falling 0.3% m/m
- Manufacturing decline led by 2.0% m/m drop in motor vehicle output
- Mining fell for the third month of the past four
- Capacity utilization slipped to 78.4%


U.S. Industrial Production Unchanged in April

240516j5.jpg

240516k5.jpg

Import prices for all goods rose 0.9% (NSA) in April after a 0.6% March gain, revised from 0.4%, and a 0.2% February increase, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A 0.2% April rise had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The y/y change of 1.1% followed 12-month price declines all through 2023. 

Export prices increased 0.5% in April following a 0.1% March uptick, revised from 0.3%, and a minimally revised 0.7% February rise. A 0.2% price gain had been expected. These gains also followed a 0.7% January increase. The 1.0% y/y decline compared to an 11.8% y/y drop in June of last year. 

The monthly rise in April import prices was led by a 2.9% increase (5.2% y/y) in imported petroleum prices after they surged 6.7% in March. The April increase was the fourth consecutive monthly gain. The increase in imported petroleum costs was accompanied by a 9.2% decline in natural gas prices, off 42.5% y/y. Nonfuel import prices rose 0.7% (0.9% y/y) after a 0.2% March increase. Import prices for foods, feeds & beverages strengthened 1.7% (6.8% y/y), up for the fourth consecutive month. Motor vehicle & parts prices increased 0.3% (2.6% y/y) after a 0.2% rise. Capital goods prices edged 0.1% higher (-0.1% y/y) after a 0.2% decline while nonauto consumer goods prices also rose 0.1% (0.5% y/y) after falling 0.3% in March. 

The increase in April export prices included a 0.9% decline (-10.2% y/y) in agricultural export prices, which added to a 1.3% March drop . Nonagricultural export prices rose 0.7% (0.1% y/y), the fourth straight monthly gain. Export prices of industrial supplies & materials rose 1.0% (-1.7% y/y), the fourth straight month of firm gain. Automotive vehicles & parts export prices strengthened 0.8% (4.0% y/y) after easing 0.1% in March. Capital goods prices rose 0.4% (1.8% y/y) after edging 0.1% higher. A 0.1% uptick (-1.3% y/y) in nonauto consumer goods prices followed a 0.4% March rise. Foods, feeds & beverage prices were off 0.7% last month (-10.6% y/y) after falling 1.6% in March. 

The import and export price series can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. Detailed figures are available in the **USINT** database. The expectations figure from the Action Economics Forecast Survey is in the **AS1REPNA** database. 


240516l5.jpg

240516m5.jpg

- Import prices rise for fourth consecutive month.
- Excluding fuels, import prices edge up for sixth straight month.
- Export price gain improves. 


Economy in Brief: July 2002

Jump to: