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/071219a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
It&#8217;s telling when an organization like the CBI says that the
expected January reading of -5 still corresponds to an annual volume
increase of 2.5%. But the result of December is the weakest in a bit
over one year (since Nov 2006). The expected sales for January are the
weakest since April of 2006. This is not Draconian weakness but then a
look at the plots in this report and an application of the
ever-reliable straight-edge forecast rule gives an idea of where we
might yet be headed. Then again, straight edge forecasts are always
wrong at some point, the only question is: when? Soon or later on? For
the moment, momentum is gone and financial fragility &#8211; or even turmoil
- is still with us. The BOE is worried enough to have cut rates even
with a forecast that sees an inflation overshoot into 2008. In an era
when the central banking mantra is "cement and anchor inflation
expectations", this is indeed a bold step by the central bank. Of
course the times are odd since there is even talk from the PM himself
that doesn't rule out a nationalization of Northern Rock. The times
they are a-changin&#8217;, aren&#8217;t they? 
 

The level of the readings in the chart make a telling
comparison with where they have been in the previous two years and THE
LEVELS speak of current strength -- or better put -- current momentum.
But the steadiness of the slippage is yet another signal and it forms a
dark side of that momentum that sounds a warning for the times ahead.
The expectations for sales and orders in January are off sharply from
December and in truth it is hard to know what to pencil in for February
and that is the number that policy must look to at the moment to sort
out the mess. Is January a rogue and outsized drop? Will February
reverse it? Will February worsen on trend? These are things we do not
know, and as Inspector Clouseau of Pink Panther fame reminds us: &#8216;we do
not know what we do not know&#8217;. So policy must have its hunch and make
its deal with the devil. The question is, of course, which devil? The
CBI report is decidedly mixed and the trend is a call to action. But it
is not clear that the BOE has the wherewithal to answer it, despite
having cut rates once already. It is also far from clear what action is
called for. 
 


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="10" scope="col">UK Retail
volume data CBI Survey </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Reported:</td>
<td>Jan-08</td>
<td>Dec-07</td>
<td>Nov-07</td>
<td>Oct-07</td>
<td>12Mo Avg</td>
<td>Pcntle</td>
<td>Max</td>
<td>Min</td>
<td>Range</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Sales/Year Ago</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>47%</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>-35</td>
<td>92</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Orders/Year Ago</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>55%</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>-38</td>
<td>80</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Sales:Time/Yr</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>-3</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>41%</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>-37</td>
<td>78</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Stocks: Sales</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>80%</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>30</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="10">Expected:</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Sales/Yr Ago</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>25%</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>72</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Orders/Yr Ago</td>
<td>-9</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>35%</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>-34</td>
<td>72</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Sales:Time/Yr</td>
<td>-16</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-9</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>22%</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>-29</td>
<td>58</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Stocks: Sales</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>21</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

It’s telling when an organization like the CBI says that the expected January reading of -5 still corresponds to an annual volume increase of 2.5%. But the result of December is the weakest in a bit over one year (since Nov 2006). The [...]

UK CBI Retail Survey Continues to Deflate Messy-nomics

Tom Moeller

<!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/071219d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
On average, retail gasoline prices last week held at the prior
period's level of $3.00 per gallon, according to the US Department of
Energy survey.That level is, however, down eleven cents from the peak
one month ago.
The recent stability of gasoline prices owes to the decline in
the price of crude oil. For spot WTI crude oil, prices at $90.00 per
barrel are down almost 10% from the highs last month which nearly
touched $100 per barrel.
That stability, however, is little comfort at the pump where
prices have doubled versus the $1.56 averaged during 2003. To drive
10,000 miles in a vehicle which averages 20 miles per gallon, the
annual cost has risen to $1,500 from $750.
At the margin, where spending decisions are made, persons
earning $30,000 per year now will now spend 5% of yearly income on
gasoline versus 2.5% in 2003. Since then the demand for gasoline indeed
has fallen, but only modestly to 2.3% of real consumer expenditures
from 2.5%. Bottom line: less will be available for spending on other
goods &amp; services.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/071219e.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Longer term trends paint a somewhat less gloomy picture for
two reasons. 1) As a percentage of total consumer spending, that
percentage spent on gasoline is down by nearly one half since before
oil prices quadrupled in the mid 1970s, and 2) versus all other
consumer prices gasoline has risen sharply, yet only to the level of
the early 1980s.
Less demand for gasoline only is perhaps a
saving grace for this picture. Had vehicle fuel efficiency not roughly
doubled to that 20 miles per gallon, annual fuel costs would be $3,000.
Ouch. That's still a doubling.
Relative to all other consumer prices, gasoline indeed has
risen. Ouch. In fact, the rise rivals the gain of
25-30 years ago. A saving grace, perhaps; the level
prices have risen to is still below the high seen in 1980. (That's only
a positive if a person was born before 1963.)
Other factors also do mitigate the negative effects of the
recent rise in gasoline prices. Disposable income growth is now
accelerating versus decelerating in earlier periods of oil price
shocks. And even though employment growth is recently down, the
deceleration is nowhere near as dramatic as in earlier periods. And the
unemployment rate is lower. Finally, interest rates are quite a bit
lower.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/071219f.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
That all, makes it quite uncertain how consumer will/is
holding up. The data are inconclusive, so far. Anecdotal reports are
mixed. Chain store sales are easing. Vehicle sales are flat to lower.
(All of the data used in this analysis is available in Haver's USECON
and USWEEKLY data bases.)
Oil Shocks and Price Stability from the
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is available <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/mt/20071201/cover.pdf">here</a>.
Today's announcement by the Fed of recent auction result can
be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20071219c.htm">
here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W4/@W4.HTM">Weekly
Prices</a></th>
<th scope="col">12/17/07</th>
<th scope="col">12/10/07</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Retail Gasoline ($ per Gallon)</td>
<td>3.00</td>
<td>3.00</td>
<td>29.2%</td>
<td>2.57</td>
<td>2.27</td>
<td>1.85</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Light Sweet Crude Oil,
WTI&nbsp; ($ per bbl.)</td>
<td>90.03</td>
<td>88.33</td>
<td>47.5%</td>
<td>61.11</td>
<td>58.16</td>
<td>41.78</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
 UK CBI Retail Survey Continues
toDeflate&nbsp; Messy-nomics
 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> December 19, 2007


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/071219a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
It&#8217;s telling when an organization like the CBI says that the
expected January reading of -5 still corresponds to an annual volume
increase of 2.5%. But the result of December is the weakest in a bit
over one year (since Nov 2006). The expected sales for January are the
weakest since April of 2006. This is not Draconian weakness but then a
look at the plots in this report and an application of the
ever-reliable straight-edge forecast rule gives an idea of where we
might yet be headed. Then again, straight edge forecasts are always
wrong at some point, the only question is: when? Soon or later on? For
the moment, momentum is gone and financial fragility &#8211; or even turmoil
- is still with us. The BOE is worried enough to have cut rates even
with a forecast that sees an inflation overshoot into 2008. In an era
when the central banking mantra is "cement and anchor inflation
expectations", this is indeed a bold step by the central bank. Of
course the times are odd since there is even talk from the PM himself
that doesn't rule out a nationalization of Northern Rock. The times
they are a-changin&#8217;, aren&#8217;t they? 
 

The level of the readings in the chart make a telling
comparison with where they have been in the previous two years and THE
LEVELS speak of current strength -- or better put -- current momentum.
But the steadiness of the slippage is yet another signal and it forms a
dark side of that momentum that sounds a warning for the times ahead.
The expectations for sales and orders in January are off sharply from
December and in truth it is hard to know what to pencil in for February
and that is the number that policy must look to at the moment to sort
out the mess. Is January a rogue and outsized drop? Will February
reverse it? Will February worsen on trend? These are things we do not
know, and as Inspector Clouseau of Pink Panther fame reminds us: &#8216;we do
not know what we do not know&#8217;. So policy must have its hunch and make
its deal with the devil. The question is, of course, which devil? The
CBI report is decidedly mixed and the trend is a call to action. But it
is not clear that the BOE has the wherewithal to answer it, despite
having cut rates once already. It is also far from clear what action is
called for. 
 


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="10" scope="col">UK Retail
volume data CBI Survey </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Reported:</td>
<td>Jan-08</td>
<td>Dec-07</td>
<td>Nov-07</td>
<td>Oct-07</td>
<td>12Mo Avg</td>
<td>Pcntle</td>
<td>Max</td>
<td>Min</td>
<td>Range</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Sales/Year Ago</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>47%</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>-35</td>
<td>92</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Orders/Year Ago</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>55%</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>-38</td>
<td>80</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Sales:Time/Yr</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>-3</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>41%</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>-37</td>
<td>78</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Stocks: Sales</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>80%</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>30</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="10">Expected:</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Sales/Yr Ago</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>25%</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>72</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Orders/Yr Ago</td>
<td>-9</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>35%</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>-34</td>
<td>72</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Sales:Time/Yr</td>
<td>-16</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-9</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>22%</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>-29</td>
<td>58</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Stocks: Sales</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>100%</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>21</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
IFO Presages Weak EMU Reading for
Germany as Well 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca&nbsp;</a> December 19, 2007


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/071219b.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The IFO index for December is out, but the detail awaits
releases next week. The headlines and sector news tell us what we
already knew and that is, conditions are still deteriorating. The
Business climate and Current situation indices are still firm-valued as
they reside at or near the three-quarters mark of their respective
ranges. The outlook index is less upbeat as it resides at the one-third
mark. If we were assigning grades it would be 'Cs&#8217; for climate and
current and a &#8216;D&#8217; for expectations. The IFO gauge has slipped more
rapidly that it did in the 2005 episode. 
 
 


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="9" scope="col">IFO
Survey: Germany </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="5">Percent: Yr/Yr</td>
<td colspan="3">INDEX NUMBERS</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Dec-07</td>
<td>Nov-07</td>
<td>Oct-07</td>
<td>Sep-07</td>
<td>Aug-07</td>
<td>Current</td>
<td>Average</td>
<td>Percentile</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Biz Climate</td>
<td style="color: red;">-5.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.9%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>103.0</td>
<td>95.8</td>
<td>75.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Current Situation</td>
<td style="color: red;">-6.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-3.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.3%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>108.1</td>
<td>94.9</td>
<td>77.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Biz Expectations</td>
<td style="color: red;">-4.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.1%</td>
<td>98.2</td>
<td>96.7</td>
<td>66.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Italy&#8217;s Orders Sag and Drop in New
Quarter 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> December 19, 2007


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/071219c.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Italy&#8217;s new orders are off in October, led by weakness in
foreign orders on the month. But that drop only offsets the rise the
month before. Domestic order weakness remains despite the 1.7% rise in
October. Over three months both domestic and foreign orders are
falling. Yr/Yr foreign order growth is still strong at +10.2%, while
domestic orders are up by just 2.9% over 12-months. In the quarter to
date, total orders are dropping at a 6.3% pace, while foreign orders
are dropping at a 19% rate. Domestic orders in Q4 2007 are edging
upward a pace of 1.9% at an annualized rate. 
 


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="7" scope="col">Italy
Orders </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Saar except m/m</td>
<td>Oct-07</td>
<td>Sep-07</td>
<td>Aug-07</td>
<td>3-mo</td>
<td>6-mo</td>
<td>12-mo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>-5.7%</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Foreign</td>
<td>-5.6%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>-4.1%</td>
<td>-16.3%</td>
<td>12.5%</td>
<td>10.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Domestic</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Memo</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Sales</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-3.6%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

On average, retail gasoline prices last week held at the prior period's level of $3.00 per gallon, according to the US Department of Energy survey.That level is, however, down eleven cents from the peak one month ago. The recent [...]

Gasoline Still Near $3.00 per Gallon. Longer Term, Less is Used

Louise Curley

<!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/071218e.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Both Canada and the United Kingdom reported lower than
expected core inflation for November. In Canada, core inflation
excluding food and energy was 1.76% while headline inflation was 2.47%.
In the UK, comparable figures were 1.47% and 2.13%. Core and headline
inflation rates for the U.K. and Canada are shown in the first and
second charts. In the
United States, on the other hand, the November rises in the core and
headline inflation rates, announced earlier, were greater than
expected. The core inflation rate was 2.33% and the headline 4.31%.
Fears of stagflation--slow or no growth and inflation--are being
surfacing. Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Greenspan, speaking
on ABC's "This Week" program on December 15, said "We are beginning to
get not stagflation, but the early symptoms of it."
Core inflation, usually defined as headline inflation
excluding energy and food, is frequently the target of a Central Bank's
monetary policy. Over time, the theory goes, rises or falls in the
prices of food and energy tend to be offset by subsequent falls or
rises in these prices. Exclusion of these items gives a better picture
of underlying inflation. However, there are times when it may be
prudent to focus not on core inflation but on the broader headline
inflation. In stagflation it is the headline series that matters. The
current rise in commodity prices is due less to a cyclical shortage of
supply that will be corrected by a cyclical increase in production in
the coming months than it is to a structural shift in world demand for
food and energy, engendered, in large part, by the rapid growth of the
emerging economies, especially, China. Yesterday, December 17, for
example, the price of a bushel of wheat almost reached $10, its highest
price on record. Soybeans also marked a record at $11.14 a bushel. Even
the price of corn, which had declined earlier in the year was up to
$4.10 on December 17. The daily prices of corn, wheat and soybeans over
the last two years are shown in the third chart.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/071218f.jpg" height="265" width="312">
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/071218g.jpg" height="265" width="312">

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">INFLATION
RATES&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 07</th>
<th scope="col">Oct 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 06&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">M/M %Chg&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %Chg&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">U.K.
Headline&nbsp; (2005=100)</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>105.3</td>
<td>103.4</td>
<td>0.28</td>
<td>2.13</td>
<td>102.3</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>98.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">U.K.
Core&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
<td>103.6</td>
<td>103.5</td>
<td>102.1</td>
<td>0.10</td>
<td>1.47</td>
<td>101.3</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>98.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Canada Headline
(2002=100)</td>
<td>111.9</td>
<td>111.6</td>
<td>109.2</td>
<td>0.27</td>
<td>2.47</td>
<td>109.1</td>
<td>107.0</td>
<td>104.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"> Canada Core</td>
<td>109.6</td>
<td>109.6</td>
<td>107.7</td>
<td>0.00</td>
<td>1.76</td>
<td>106.9</td>
<td>105.3</td>
<td>103.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">U. S. Headline
(1982-84=100)</td>
<td>210.2</td>
<td>208.9</td>
<td>201.5</td>
<td>0.59</td>
<td>4.31</td>
<td>201.6</td>
<td>195.3</td>
<td>188.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">U. S. Core</td>
<td>212.4</td>
<td>212.3</td>
<td>207.6</td>
<td>0.06</td>
<td>2.33</td>
<td>205.9</td>
<td>200.9</td>
<td>196.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Both Canada and the United Kingdom reported lower than expected core inflation for November. In Canada, core inflation excluding food and energy was 1.76% while headline inflation was 2.47%. In the UK, comparable figures were 1.47% [...]

In Spite of Lower than Expected Inflation in Canada and the Uk in November, Stagflation Fears Are Rising

<!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/071218h.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
It may seem curious that so many Europeans are complaining
about the strength of the euro while Europe&#8217;s economic data are off
peak but are not collapsing and as the Euro Area trade surplus is still
growing in October. Growing &#8211; the SURPLUS? Why is Gernot Nerb of
Germany&#8217;s prestigious IFO saying that if the euro moves much higher,
the ECB might even consider cutting rates although Euro Area inflation
would certainly not accommodate that (nor would the growth rates of
money or credit for that matter)? 
 

A closer look at the trade components shows what is going on.
Exports are still growing and growing faster than imports (8.6% Versus
6%, Yr/Yr for both). But one year ago export growth was 14.3% (y/y) and
one year ago import growth was 12.6% (Y/Y). So both flows have slowed
dramatically as the Euro has risen. 
 

Over the recent three months imports are up at just less than
a 6% pace but with food and drink imports running at nearly a 25%
annual pace. 
 

Overall exports are still growing as well, but if we look at
the all&#8211;important manufacturing category we see that manufacturing
exports have slipped from a pace of 15% one year ago to a Yr/Yr pace of
5.3% in November of 2007 and to a three month annualized pace of 4.2%
over three months. This is a marked slowdown. For imports of
manufacturing products the slippage is even more awesome. Imports of
manufacturing goods were up by 14.4% Y/Y in Nov of 2006. In Nov of 2007
that Yr/Yr growth rate is down to +1.6% and over three months that rate
is at a -10% pace. 
 

The trade surplus continues to grow because the Zone&#8217;s imports
are falling faster than export growth, but both flows are receding
rapidly. The strong euro is impacting Euro Area exports and the
weakness in exports sending shivers through the economy and slowing
everything down impacting imports as well. It is no wonder that the
OECD is urging the ECB to be tolerant of its inflation overshoot. Even
so the policy endorsed by Nerb is an outliner. 
 

These trade-offs are merely a sample of the sort of stuff
Europe can expect if it wishes to pursue for the Euro a role as major
reserve currency unit. Often what the FX market demands is a result
that is not copasetic with the needs the domestic economy. Welcome to
globalization. 


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr><th colspan="7" scope="col"> Euro Area 13-Trade trends for goods</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="2">m/m%</td>
<td colspan="4">% Saar</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Oct-07</td>
<td>Sep-07</td>
<td>3-Mo</td>
<td>6-Mo</td>
<td>12-Mo</td>
<td>12-Mo Ago</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Balance*</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 4,017</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 3,648</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 3,931</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 3,692</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 3,251</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; (1,655)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="7">Exports</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">All Exports</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>15.3%</td>
<td>13.1%</td>
<td>8.6%</td>
<td>14.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Food and Drinks</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>11.0%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>15.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Raw materials</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
<td>6.8%</td>
<td>19.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Manufacturing</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
<td>15.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="7">Imports</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">All Imports</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>11.2%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>12.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Food and Drinks</td>
<td>-3.7%</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
<td>24.6%</td>
<td>18.1%</td>
<td>11.4%</td>
<td>8.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Raw materials</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-5.0%</td>
<td>-16.5%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-4.1%</td>
<td>35.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Manufacturing</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-10.0%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>14.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">*Eur mlns; mo or period average</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

It may seem curious that so many Europeans are complaining about the strength of the euro while Europe’s economic data are off peak but are not collapsing and as the Euro Area trade surplus is still growing in October. Growing – the [...]

EMU Trade Surplus Grows as Flows Slow

<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/071218c.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales last week rose 1.4% last week but the increase still left sales in December 0.7% below the November average, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS.
During the last ten years there has been a 45% correlation between the y/y change in chain store sales and the change in nonauto retail sales less gasoline.
The ICSC-UBS retail chain-store sales index is constructed using the same-store sales (stores open for one year) reported by 78 stores of seven retailers: Dayton Hudson, Federated, Kmart, May, J.C. Penney, Sears and Wal-Mart.
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC-UBS rose 0.4% and added to a 0.6% gain during the prior week.
Collecting Consumer Debt in America from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia is available <a href="http://www.phil.frb.org/files/br/2007/q2/hunt_collecting-consumer-debt.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/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">12/14/07</th>
<th scope="col">12/07/07</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>475.7</td>
<td>469.3</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Chain store sales last week rose 1.4% last week but the increase still left sales in December 0.7% below the November average, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS.

U.S. Chain Store Sales Ticked Up

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/071218d.jpg" width="353">
The Composite Housing Market Index from the National Association of Home Builders&#39; (NAHB) remained unchanged m/m in December at the lowest level since early 1991. The index was 49% below the high this past February.
In December, the index fell sharply m/m in the Northeast (-48.6% y/y, was unchanged out West (-43.8% y/y) and rose in the South (-46.2 y/y and in the Midwest (-31.8% y/y).
During the last twenty years there has been a 76% correlation between the y/y change in the Composite Index and the change in single family housing starts. 
The sub-index from the NAHB for current sales improved 5.6% in December but remained down 76% from the 2004 high.
The sub-index covering prospective sales in the next six months ticked up slightly m/m but also remained two thirds lower than the 2005 peak.
Traffic of prospective home buyers virtually dried up and fell 17.6% m/m, down three quarters 2005 high.
The NAHB index is a diffusion index based on a survey of builders. Readings above 50 signal that more builders view conditions good than poor. 
Visit the <a href="http://www.nahb.org">National Association of Home Builders</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/SURVEYS/@S4/@S4.HTM">Nat&#39;l Association of Home Builders</a>&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">November &nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Dec. &#39;06</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Housing Market Index</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>67</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Composite Housing Market Index from the National Association of Home Builders' (NAHB) remained unchanged m/m in December at the lowest level since early 1991. The index was 49% below the high this past February. In December, the [...]

U.S. NAHB Housing Market Index Unchanged

<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/071218a.jpg" width="353">
November housing starts fell 3.7% from October to 1.187M units. Starts in October were revised up slightly due to more starts of multi-family units. Last month&#39;s figure matched Consensus expectations for 1.18M starts.
Single-family starts fell last month by another 5.4% m/m to 829,000 units (AR), the lowest level since 1991 and down 55% from the peak during January 2006.
Multi-family starts were roughly unchanged after the 45.9% m/m spike in October.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/071218b.jpg" width="353">
By region, single family starts in the Northeast retraced nearly all of the recovery during October with a 20.0% (-29.2% y/y) decline. Single family starts in the Midwest also were quite weak and fell 20.8% (-28.6% y/y). Single family starts in the West fell a more moderate 6.8% m/m yet remained down 63.9% from the 2005 peak. In the South starts reversed a third of the October decline with a 5.4% m/m increase (-36.1% y/y).
Building permits fell 1.5% (-24.6% y/y) and were off by nearly one half from the 2005 peak. Single-family permits fell as well by 5.6% (-33.7% y/y) and were off an even greater 57.5% from the peak.
Housing Woes Weigh Heavily on the Economy from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis can be found <a href="http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2007/d/pdf/housing-woes.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/@E9/@E901/@E90101/@E90101.HTM">Housing Starts (000s, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">November</th>
<th scope="col">October</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>1,187</td>
<td>1,232</td>
<td>-24.2%</td>
<td>1,812</td>
<td>2,073</td>
<td>1,950</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Single-Family</td>
<td>829</td>
<td>876</td>
<td>-34.9%</td>
<td>1,474</td>
<td>1,719</td>
<td>1,604</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Multi-Family</td>
<td>358</td>
<td>356</td>
<td>22.6%</td>
<td>338</td>
<td>354</td>
<td>345</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Building Permits</td>
<td>1,152</td>
<td>1,170</td>
<td>-24.6%</td>
<td>1,842</td>
<td>2,159</td>
<td>2,058</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

November housing starts fell 3.7% from October to 1.187M units. Starts in October were revised up slightly due to more starts of multi-family units. Last month's figure matched Consensus expectations for 1.18M starts. Single-family [...]

U.S. Housing Starts Down As Expected in November

<!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/071218a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
November housing starts fell 3.7% from October to 1.187M
units. Starts in October were revised up slightly due to more starts of
multi-family units. Last month's figure matched Consensus expectations
for 1.18M starts.
Single-family starts fell last month by another 5.4% m/m to
829,000 units (AR), the lowest level since 1991 and down 55% from the
peak during January 2006.
Multi-family starts were roughly unchanged after the 45.9% m/m
spike in October.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/071218b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
By region, single family starts in the Northeast retraced
nearly all of the recovery during October with a 20.0% (-29.2% y/y)
decline. Single family starts in the Midwest also were quite weak and
fell 20.8% (-28.6% y/y). Single family starts in the West fell a more
moderate 6.8% m/m yet remained down 63.9% from the 2005 peak. In the
South starts reversed a third of the October decline with a 5.4% m/m
increase (-36.1% y/y).
Building permits fell 1.5% (-24.6% y/y) and were off by nearly
one half from the 2005 peak. Single-family permits fell as well by 5.6%
(-33.7% y/y) and were off an even greater 57.5% from the peak.
Housing Woes Weigh Heavily on the
Economy from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis can be
found <a href="http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2007/d/pdf/housing-woes.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/@E9/@E901/@E90101/@E90101.HTM">Housing
Starts (000s, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">November</th>
<th scope="col">October</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>1,187</td>
<td>1,232</td>
<td>-24.2%</td>
<td>1,812</td>
<td>2,073</td>
<td>1,950</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Single-Family</td>
<td>829</td>
<td>876</td>
<td>-34.9%</td>
<td>1,474</td>
<td>1,719</td>
<td>1,604</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Multi-Family</td>
<td>358</td>
<td>356</td>
<td>22.6%</td>
<td>338</td>
<td>354</td>
<td>345</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Building Permits</td>
<td>1,152</td>
<td>1,170</td>
<td>-24.6%</td>
<td>1,842</td>
<td>2,159</td>
<td>2,058</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. NAHB Housing Market Index
Unchanged 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> December 18, 2007


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/071218d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The Composite Housing Market Index from the National
Association of Home Builders' (NAHB) remained unchanged m/m in December
at the lowest level since early 1991. The index was 49% below the high
this past February.
In December, the index fell sharply m/m in the Northeast
(-48.6% y/y, was unchanged out West (-43.8% y/y) and rose in the South
(-46.2 y/y and in the Midwest (-31.8% y/y).
During the last twenty years there has been a 76% correlation
between the y/y change in the Composite Index and the change in single
family housing starts. 

The sub-index from the NAHB for current sales improved 5.6% in
December but remained down 76% from the 2004 high.
The sub-index covering prospective sales in the next
six months ticked up slightly m/m but also remained two
thirds lower than the 2005 peak.
Traffic of prospective home buyers virtually dried up and fell
17.6% m/m, down three quarters 2005 high.
The NAHB index is a diffusion index based on a survey of
builders. Readings above 50 signal that more builders view conditions
good than poor. 
 

Visit the <a href="http://www.nahb.org">National
Association of Home Builders</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/SURVEYS/@S4/@S4.HTM">Nat'l
Association of Home Builders</a>&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">November
&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Dec. '06</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Housing Market Index</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>67</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Chain Store Sales Ticked Up 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> December 18, 2007


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/071218c.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Chain store sales last week rose 1.4% last week but the
increase still left sales in December 0.7% below the November average,
according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS.

During the last ten years there has been a 45% correlation
between the y/y change in chain store sales and the change in nonauto
retail sales less gasoline.

The ICSC-UBS retail
chain-store sales index is constructed using the same-store sales
(stores open for one year) reported by 78 stores of seven retailers:
Dayton Hudson, Federated, Kmart, May, J.C. Penney, Sears and Wal-Mart.


The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC-UBS rose
0.4% and added to a 0.6% gain during the prior week.
Collecting Consumer Debt in America from
the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia is available <a href="http://www.phil.frb.org/files/br/2007/q2/hunt_collecting-consumer-debt.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/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS
(SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">12/14/07</th>
<th scope="col">12/07/07</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain
Store Sales</td>
<td>475.7</td>
<td>469.3</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
&nbsp;In Spite of Lower than
Expected Inflation in Canada and the Uk in November, Stagflation Fears
Are Rising 
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise
Curley</a> December 18, 2007


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/071218e.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Both Canada and the United Kingdom reported lower than
expected core inflation for November. In Canada, core inflation
excluding food and energy was 1.76% while headline inflation was 2.47%.
In the UK, comparable figures were 1.47% and 2.13%. Core and headline
inflation rates for the U.K. and Canada are shown in the first and
second charts. In the United States, on the other hand, the
November rises in the core and headline inflation rates, announced
earlier, were greater than expected. The core inflation rate was 2.33%
and the headline 4.31%. Fears of stagflation--slow or no growth and
inflation--are being surfacing. Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman,
Greenspan, speaking on ABC's "This Week" program on December 15, said
"We are beginning to get not stagflation, but the early symptoms of it."
Core inflation, usually defined as headline inflation
excluding energy and food, is frequently the target of a Central Bank's
monetary policy. Over time, the theory goes, rises or falls in the
prices of food and energy tend to be offset by subsequent falls or
rises in these prices. Exclusion of these items gives a better picture
of underlying inflation. However, there are times when it may be
prudent to focus not on core inflation but on the broader headline
inflation. In stagflation it is the headline series that matters. The
current rise in commodity prices is due less to a cyclical shortage of
supply that will be corrected by a cyclical increase in production in
the coming months than it is to a structural shift in world demand for
food and energy, engendered, in large part, by the rapid growth of the
emerging economies, especially, China. Yesterday, December 17, for
example, the price of a bushel of wheat almost reached $10, its highest
price on record. Soybeans also marked a record at $11.14 a bushel. Even
the price of corn, which had declined earlier in the year was up to
$4.10 on December 17. The daily prices of corn, wheat and soybeans over
the last two years are shown in the third chart.

<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/071218f.jpg" height="265" width="312"><img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/071218g.jpg" height="265" width="312">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">INFLATION
RATES&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 07</th>
<th scope="col">Oct 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 06&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">M/M %Chg&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %Chg&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">U.K.
Headline&nbsp; (2005=100)</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>105.3</td>
<td>103.4</td>
<td>0.28</td>
<td>2.13</td>
<td>102.3</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>98.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">U.K.
Core&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
<td>103.6</td>
<td>103.5</td>
<td>102.1</td>
<td>0.10</td>
<td>1.47</td>
<td>101.3</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>98.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Canada Headline
(2002=100)</td>
<td>111.9</td>
<td>111.6</td>
<td>109.2</td>
<td>0.27</td>
<td>2.47</td>
<td>109.1</td>
<td>107.0</td>
<td>104.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"> Canada Core</td>
<td>109.6</td>
<td>109.6</td>
<td>107.7</td>
<td>0.00</td>
<td>1.76</td>
<td>106.9</td>
<td>105.3</td>
<td>103.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">U. S. Headline
(1982-84=100)</td>
<td>210.2</td>
<td>208.9</td>
<td>201.5</td>
<td>0.59</td>
<td>4.31</td>
<td>201.6</td>
<td>195.3</td>
<td>188.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">U. S. Core</td>
<td>212.4</td>
<td>212.3</td>
<td>207.6</td>
<td>0.06</td>
<td>2.33</td>
<td>205.9</td>
<td>200.9</td>
<td>196.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
EMU Trade Surplus Grows as
FlowsSlow 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> December 18, 2007


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/071218h.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
It may seem curious that so many Europeans are complaining
about the strength of the euro while Europe&#8217;s economic data are off
peak but are not collapsing and as the Euro Area trade surplus is still
growing in October. Growing &#8211; the SURPLUS? Why is Gernot Nerb of
Germany&#8217;s prestigious IFO saying that if the euro moves much higher,
the ECB might even consider cutting rates although Euro Area inflation
would certainly not accommodate that (nor would the growth rates of
money or credit for that matter)? 

A closer look at the trade components shows what is going on.
Exports are still growing and growing faster than imports (8.6% Versus
6%, Yr/Yr for both). But one year ago export growth was 14.3% (y/y) and
one year ago import growth was 12.6% (Y/Y). So both flows have slowed
dramatically as the Euro has risen. 

Over the recent three months imports are up at just less than
a 6% pace but with food and drink imports running at nearly a 25%
annual pace. 

Overall exports are still growing as well, but if we look at
the all&#8211;important manufacturing category we see that manufacturing
exports have slipped from a pace of 15% one year ago to a Yr/Yr pace of
5.3% in November of 2007 and to a three month annualized pace of 4.2%
over three months. This is a marked slowdown. For imports of
manufacturing products the slippage is even more awesome. Imports of
manufacturing goods were up by 14.4% Y/Y in Nov of 2006. In Nov of 2007
that Yr/Yr growth rate is down to +1.6% and over three months that rate
is at a -10% pace. 

The trade surplus continues to grow because the Zone&#8217;s imports
are falling faster than export growth, but both flows are receding
rapidly. The strong euro is impacting Euro Area exports and the
weakness in exports sending shivers through the economy and slowing
everything down impacting imports as well. It is no wonder that the
OECD is urging the ECB to be tolerant of its inflation overshoot. Even
so the policy endorsed by Nerb is an outliner. 

These trade-offs are merely a sample of the sort of stuff
Europe can expect if it wishes to pursue for the Euro a role as major
reserve currency unit. Often what the FX market demands is a result
that is not copasetic with the needs the domestic economy. Welcome to
globalization. 


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="7" scope="col"> Euro
Area 13-Trade trends for goods</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="2">m/m%</td>
<td colspan="4">% Saar</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Oct-07</td>
<td>Sep-07</td>
<td>3-Mo</td>
<td>6-Mo</td>
<td>12-Mo</td>
<td>12-Mo Ago</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Balance*</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 4,017</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 3,648</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 3,931</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 3,692</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 3,251</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; (1,655)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="7">Exports</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">All Exports</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>15.3%</td>
<td>13.1%</td>
<td>8.6%</td>
<td>14.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Food and Drinks</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>11.0%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>15.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Raw materials</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
<td>6.8%</td>
<td>19.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Manufacturing</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
<td>15.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol" colspan="7">Imports</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">All Imports</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>11.2%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>12.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Food and Drinks</td>
<td>-3.7%</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
<td>24.6%</td>
<td>18.1%</td>
<td>11.4%</td>
<td>8.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Raw materials</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-5.0%</td>
<td>-16.5%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-4.1%</td>
<td>35.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Manufacturing</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-10.0%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>14.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">*Eur mlns;
mo or period average</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

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: December 2007

Jump to:

UK CBI Retail Survey Continues to Deflate Messy-nomics

Gasoline Still Near $3.00 per Gallon. Longer Term, Less is Used

In Spite of Lower than Expected Inflation in Canada and the Uk in November, Stagflation Fears Are Rising

EMU Trade Surplus Grows as Flows Slow

U.S. Chain Store Sales Ticked Up

U.S. NAHB Housing Market Index Unchanged

U.S. Housing Starts Down As Expected in November

U.S. Housing Starts Down As Expected in November