Tom Moeller

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>

   <p><a href="/comment/130523i_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130523i.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130523j_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130523j.png"></a></p>

     
                <b>New home sales</b> increased 2.3% (29.0% y/y) last month to 454,000 (AR)
                from a revised 444,000 during March, initially reported as
                417,000. The latest level was near the cycle-high as the monthly
                gain outpaced Consensus expectations for sales of 426,000. Sales
                were mixed m/m throughout the country. New home sales in the
                West jumped 10.8% (26.8% y/y) to 123,000 while sales in the
                South gained 3.0% (37.5% y/y) to 242,000. To the downside were
                sales in the Northeast. They fell 16.7% (+3.4% y/y) to 30,000
                and sales in the Midwest were off 4.8% (+18.0% y/y) to 59,000. 
                <p><b>Home prices</b> reached a record high with an 8.3% jump
                (14.9% y/y) to a median of $271,600. The average price of a new
                home sold gained 15.4% (14.9% y/y) to $330,800, also a record
                high.</p>
                <p>Conditions in the new home market remain tight. The <b>inventory
                of unsold homes</b> backed up recently but the <b>months supply</b>
                of new homes neared the old low of 4.1. The <b>length of time to
                sell a new home rose m/m to 4.0 </b>months but that was down
                from the revised 5.1 month average for all of last year. These
                figures compare to more than 14.0 months at the end of 2009.</p>
                <p>The data in this report are available in Haver's <b>USECON</b>
                database. The consensus expectation figure is from the Action
                Economics survey and is available in the <b>AS1REPNA</b>
                database.&nbsp;</p>
  
     <p><a href="/comment/130523k_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130523k.png"></a>
        <a href="/comment/130523l_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130523l.png"></a></p>
  
            <table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
        <thead>
          <tr>
                      <th class="firstcol">U.S. New Home Sales</th>
                      <th scope="col">Apr</th>
                      <th scope="col">Mar</th>
                      <th scope="col">Feb</th>
                      <th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
                      <th scope="col">2012</th>
                      <th scope="col">2011</th>
                      <th scope="col">2010</th>
                    </tr>
                  </thead>
                  <tbody>
                    <tr>
                      <td class="firstcol">Total (SAAR, 000s)</td>
                      <td>454</td>
                      <td>444</td>
                      <td>429</td>
                      <td>29.0</td>
                      <td>366</td>
                      <td>307</td>
                      <td>321</td>
                    </tr>
                    <tr class="odd">
                      <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Northeast</td>
                      <td>30</td>
                      <td>36</td>
                      <td>34</td>
                      <td>3.4</td>
                      <td>28</td>
                      <td>21</td>
                      <td>31</td>
                    </tr>
                    <tr>
                      <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Midwest</td>
                      <td>59</td>
                      <td>62</td>
                      <td>61</td>
                      <td>18.0</td>
                      <td>49</td>
                      <td>45</td>
                      <td>45</td>
                    </tr>
                    <tr class="odd">
                      <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;South</td>
                      <td>242</td>
                      <td>235</td>
                      <td>199</td>
                      <td>37.5</td>
                      <td>195</td>
                      <td>168</td>
                      <td>173</td>
                    </tr>
                    <tr>
                      <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;West</td>
                      <td>123</td>
                      <td>111</td>
                      <td>135</td>
                      <td>26.8</td>
                      <td>94</td>
                      <td>72</td>
                      <td>74</td>
                    </tr>
                    <tr class="odd">
                      <td class="firstcol">Median Price (NSA, $)</td>
                      <td>271,600</td>
                      <td>250,700</td>
                      <td>266,300</td>
                      <td>14.9</td>
                      <td>242,258</td>
                      <td>224,317</td>
                      <td>221,242</td>
                       </tr>
              </tbody>
            </table>
            </span>
</body></html>
                      
                   

New home sales increased 2.3% (29.0% y/y) last month to 454,000 (AR) from a revised 444,000 during March, initially reported as 417,000. The latest level was near the cycle-high as the monthly gain outpaced Consensus expectations for [...]

U.S. New Home Sales Near Cycle-High as Prices Surge to Record

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>

   <p><a href="/comment/130523e_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130523e.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130523f_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130523f.png"></a></p>


      <p>Improved housing markets are lending strength to home-sellers' pricing
      power. The U.S. House Price Index from the Federal Housing and Finance
      Agency (FHFA) rose 1.3% during March, the strongest m/m increase of the
      recovery. The 7.2% y/y rise also was its strongest since the middle of
      2006; it followed four successive years of price decline. Despite the
      improvement, prices remained 11.1% below the 2007 average.</p>
      <p>Home price appreciation was broad-based in the U.S. It was most notable
      in the Pacific (16.1% y/y) and Mountain (14.4% y/y) states. Lesser gains
      were logged across the country with prices in the Mid-Atlantic region up
      the least (1.6% y/y).</p>
      <p>The FHFA house price index is a weighted repeat sales index. It
      measures average price changes in repeat sales or refinancings on the same
      properties. It is based on transactions involving conforming, conventional
      mortgages purchased or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Only
      mortgage transactions on single family properties are included. The FHFA
      data is available in Haver's <b>USECON</b> database.&nbsp;</p>
      
      
   <p><a href="/comment/130523g_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130523g.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130523h_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130523h.png"></a></p>
      <p>&nbsp;</p>


<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
	
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" >FHFA U.S. House Price Index
              Purchase Only (SA %)</th>
            <th scope="col" >Mar</th>
            <th scope="col" >Feb</th>
            <th scope="col" >Jan</th>
            <th scope="col" >Y/Y</th>
            <th scope="col" >2012</th>
            <th scope="col" >2011</th>
            <th scope="col" >2010</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" ><b>Total</b></td>
            <td>1.3</td>
            <td>0.9</td>
            <td>0.6</td>
            <td>7.2</td>
            <td>3.5</td>
            <td>-4.1</td>
            <td>-2.9</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; New England</td>
            <td>0.6</td>
            <td>0.3</td>
            <td>0.1</td>
            <td>2.2</td>
            <td>-0.1</td>
            <td>-2.2</td>
            <td>-2.3</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Middle Atlantic</td>
            <td>1.2</td>
            <td>-0.4</td>
            <td>0.1</td>
            <td>1.6</td>
            <td>-0.0</td>
            <td>-3.2</td>
            <td>-1.1</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; East North Central</td>
            <td>1.7</td>
            <td>0.6</td>
            <td>0.9</td>
            <td>4.7</td>
            <td>2.2</td>
            <td>-3.7</td>
            <td>-3.2</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; West North Central</td>
            <td>1.1</td>
            <td>0.7</td>
            <td>-0.5</td>
            <td>4.8</td>
            <td>3.5</td>
            <td>-3.3</td>
            <td>-2.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; South Atlantic</td>
            <td>0.7</td>
            <td>1.9</td>
            <td>0.7</td>
            <td>7.5</td>
            <td>4.1</td>
            <td>-5.2</td>
            <td>-4.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; East South Central</td>
            <td>2.2</td>
            <td>0.8</td>
            <td>-0.3</td>
            <td>4.6</td>
            <td>2.5</td>
            <td>-2.6</td>
            <td>-2.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; West South Central</td>
            <td>0.5</td>
            <td>0.6</td>
            <td>0.7</td>
            <td>5.8</td>
            <td>4.3</td>
            <td>-1.1</td>
            <td>-0.3</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Mountain</td>
            <td>0.9</td>
            <td>1.3</td>
            <td>1.1</td>
            <td>14.4</td>
            <td>8.2</td>
            <td>-6.9</td>
            <td>-6.5</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Pacific</td>
            <td>2.3</td>
            <td>1.1</td>
            <td>1.6</td>
            <td>16.1</td>
            <td>4.9</td>
            <td>-7.0</td>
            <td>-2.2</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      </span>
    <table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">  
      
     <b>New England:</b> Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut
     <b>Middle Atlantic:</b> New York, New Jersey &amp; Pennsylvania.
     <b>East North Central</b>: Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.
      <b>West North Central</b>: North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas
      and Missouri.
      <b>South Atlantic</b>: Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia,
      West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.
      <b>East South Central</b>: Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama.
      <b>West South Central</b>: Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas and Louisiana. 
      <b>Mountain</b>: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico.  
      <b>Pacific</b>: Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California.
      </table>
      <p>&nbsp;</p>
    </body></html>

Improved housing markets are lending strength to home-sellers' pricing power. The U.S. House Price Index from the Federal Housing and Finance Agency (FHFA) rose 1.3% during March, the strongest m/m increase of the recovery. The 7.2% [...]

FHFA Home Price Index Remains in an Uptrend

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	  <br>
      
      
      <p></p>

   <p><a href="/comment/130523a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130523a.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130523b_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130523b.png"></a></p>


      <p><b>Initial claims for unemployment insurance </b>fell to 340,000 (-8.4%
      y/y) during the week ended May 18 from a revised 363,000 during the prior
      week, initially reported as 360,000. Consensus expectations were for 345,000
      claims. The four week moving average of claims was roughly unchanged at
      339,500 versus 400,000 last week.</p>
      <p>Fewer filings for jobless insurance suggest increased employment.
      The latest claims figure covers the survey week for
      May nonfarm payrolls and claims fell 15,000 (4.2%) from the April period.
      During the last ten years, there has been a 74% correlation between the
      level of claims and the m/m change in nonfarm payrolls.</p>
      <p>Continuing claims for unemployment insurance in the week ended May 11
      fell sharply to a new low of 2.912M (-11.7% y/y). The four week moving
      average of continuing claims fell to 2.995M. The insured rate of
      unemployment held at 2.3% where it's been for five weeks. This particular
      count covers only &quot;regular&quot; programs and does not include all
      extended benefit and other specialized jobless insurance programs. In the
      week of May 4, the latest figure available, the grand total of all benefit
      recipients fell to a new low of 4.745M, (-23.1% y/y. That compares to a
      cycle peak of 12.060M in January 2010. The number of individuals who are
      collecting emergency and extended payments slipped to 1.777 million (-32.5%
      y/y).</p>
      <p><b>By state,</b> the insured unemployment rate continued to vary
      greatly with Virginia (1.23%), Louisiana (1.23%), Texas (1.48%), Florida
      (1.53%), Tennessee (1.53%), South Carolina (1.61%), Missouri (1.71%) and
      Ohio (1.77%) at the low end of the range. At the high end were Michigan
      (2.15%), New York (2.57%), Massachusetts (2.59%), Illinois (2.81%),
      Wisconsin (2.82%), (Nevada (2.91%), New Jersey (3.19%) and California (3.28%).</p>
      <p>Data on weekly unemployment insurance are contained in Haver's <b>WEEKLY</b>
      database and they are summarized monthly in <b>USECON</b>. Data for
      individual states are in <b>REGIONW</b>. The consensus estimates come from
      the Action Economics survey, carried in the <b>AS1REPNA</b> database.&nbsp;</p>
      
      <p>The minutes to the latest <b>FOMC </b>meeting can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20130522a.htm">here</a>.</p>

    <p><a href="/comment/130523c_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130523c.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130523d_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130523d.png"></a></p>
      <p>&nbsp;</p>


<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col"  >Unemployment
              Insurance (000s)</th>
            <th scope="col"  >05/18/13</th>
            <th scope="col"  >05/11/13</th>
            <th scope="col"  >05/04/13</th>
            <th scope="col"  >Y/Y %</th>
            <th scope="col"  >2012</th>
            <th scope="col"  >2011</th>
            <th scope="col"  >2010</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol"  >Initial Claims</td>
            <td>340</td>
            <td>363</td>
            <td>328</td>
            <td>-8.4</td>
            <td>375</td>
            <td>409</td>
            <td>459</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol"  >Continuing Claims</td>
            <td>--</td>
            <td>2,912</td>
            <td>3,024</td>
            <td>-11.7</td>
            <td>3,318</td>
            <td>3,744</td>
            <td>4,544</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol"  >Insured Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
            <td>--</td>
            <td>2.3</td>
            <td>2.3</td>
            <td>2.6<br>
              (5/12)</td>
            <td>2.6</td>
            <td>3.0</td>
            <td>3.6</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol"  >Total &quot;All Programs&quot; (NSA)</td>
            <td>--</td>
            <td>--</td>
            <td>4.745M</td>
            <td>-23.1</td>
            <td>6.047M</td>
            <td>7.750M</td>
            <td>9.850M</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
  


</html>

Initial claims for unemployment insurance fell to 340,000 (-8.4% y/y) during the week ended May 18 from a revised 363,000 during the prior week, initially reported as 360,000. Consensus expectations were for 345,000 claims. The four [...]

U.S. Initial Unemployment Insurance Claims Pull Back

Robert Brusca

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	  <br>
	  <span id="articletitle">Or, How Can Such 'Good News' Be So Bad?</span><br>
      
      
      <p></p>

     
	    <p><a href="/comment/130522a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130522a.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130522b_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130522b.png"></a></p>

     <p> The European Monetary Union (EMU) current account surplus jumped to 25.9 billion euros in March from 14.6 billion euros in February. The surplus is the largest on record since the Union was formed. While there are some countries in the monetary union looking for some relief from their suppressed growth conditions by weakening the euro, this huge spurt in the current account makes it clear that a weaker euro should not be an option for Europe. Europe has internal problems that should not be addressed through manipulation of the external exchange rate. Japan is already doing that since the exchange rate is the cutting-edge of its program for quantitative easing. Europe is too large for it to join in 'the fun' and begin a new era of competitive devaluation.
</p><p>
In March, in goods trade, exports from the Zone rose by 2.6% as imports fell by 4.1%. Over three months goods exports are growing at a 6.9% annual rate while goods imports falling in a 16.4% annual rate. Over the year there is nearly a 10 percentage point gap between the growth rates of exports and imports, as imports are falling at a 5.8% annual rate and exports are rising at a 3.9% annual rate. The chart of the of the trade situation makes it clear what an incredible spurt is occurring in the EMU current account.
</p><p>
This surging surplus will be buffering the negative effects of growth within the euro-Zone and also will be transmitting substantial and severe negative growth effects to the rest of the world. The countries in EMU are continuing to advance their export penetration in foreign markets while pushing aside imports at an extremely strong pace after a long period of deceleration.
</p><p> 
The decline in imports is nowhere near as severe as it was during the financial crisis. However, in the financial crisis the entire global economy was mired in recession; the picture of the European economies was more or less mirrored by other global economies. Now the rest of the world is in the recovery phase but demand in Europe is continuing to sink. Europe is propping itself up by living off of exports to the rest of the world.  In the last recession both exports and imports were in a free-fall decline everywhere - not so for Europe today. Remember since these are figures are for the European Monetary Union they cancel out all the internal trade. What we are looking at, are the net exports out of the euro area to the rest of the world versus the net imports into the euro area from the rest of the world.
</p><p>
We can take this chart as another reason why the G7 changed its tilt to try to get countries to see a role for growth rather than simply for austerity. Continued, or growing, recessions in Europe could act like a black hole to help suck other countries down into a morass of weakness. In a world economy where growth is fragile and still floundering even a country like the US that only sends a moderate proportion of its exports to Europe could find the blowback from declining European imports a substantial impediment to deal with.
</p><p>
Today the IMF has released a report urging The United Kingdom to change or moderate its program of austerity. UK authorities have indicated that they intend to hold the line and to continue to stay with what they are doing. Some recent data for the UK have been a little bit more upbeat playing into the hand of the policymakers that want to stay the course. On the other hand, fresh retail sales data for April were announced as unexpectedly weak, just today. Meanwhile the BOE is getting prepared to install a new Governor, one who appears to be a strong advocate of more QE. The bulk of the BOE policymakers are still opposed to that. The BOE may get a new face but not a new policy. 
</p><p>
Let there be no doubt that the main problem facing the global economy is insufficient demand. There also are huge differences in competitiveness because of the extraordinarily rapid growth achieved in some developing nations that have developed without substantially raising their standard of living or letting their currencies appreciate to reflect their new status. 
</p><p>
In the developed world countries are grappling with ongoing banking sector issues as well as an excessive buildup in debt. Over the past several years Europe has pursued a policy of harsh and unrelenting austerity. It would now seem to that policy has gone about as far down the road as it can. The US has been more willing to use fiscal policy but now finds itself faced with yawning future deficits based on ever richer promises made to future generations. In the US a recent pickup in tax revenues seems to be short-circuiting the air of urgency that had existed around the need to deal with those future deficits.
</p><p>
The world economy appears to have come to a subtle crossroads. Fiscal policy has been excessively tight. Monetary policy has been trying to fill in the gaps and may have been too loose for too long. And, wherever, you would prefer to see changes made, it is clear that the fiscal/monetary mix has moved onto a stage where it's threatening to future growth.
</p><p>
When countries or regions like the European Monetary Union or Japan use policy and their special circumstances to export their deflation to the rest of the world that world becomes more dangerous place. 
</p><p>
While there certainly is evidence that the yen had been overcooked on the upside and is overdue for some of the backtracking that we are now seeing, in Europe the argument we make is different. Europe's problems are internal and they require an internal solution that Europe doesn't have the backbone to face. Its leading countries will not back its weak countries strongly enough, even when they undertake severe austerity. Europe's people want to keep the European dream alive, yet they unclear about whether they want to be European or nationalist. They don't want to give up on being 'European' but none of them wants to lose their national identity or control. Yet, the simplest solution for Europe would be to let the struggling countries leave the Zone and float their own currencies so that they could reset their competitiveness. So far that option is not on the table as Europe continues to kick the can down the road hoping that some new solution will somehow present itself. That seems unlikely.
</p>

<p><img border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130522.png" width="768" height="614"></p>


      </html>

The European Monetary Union (EMU) current account surplus jumped to 25.9 billion euros in March from 14.6 billion euros in February. The surplus is the largest on record since the Union was formed. While there are some countries in [...]

EMU Current Account Spurts...Oh My!

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	  <br>
      
      
      <p></p>

<p><a href="/comment/130521G_big.png" name="modal"><img class="large" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130521g.png" align="left"></a>
      
UK inflation broke sharply lower in April, falling by 0.5% after rising 0.4% in March. The twelve-month growth rate for the harmonized consumer price index in the UK is at 2.3% down from a pace of 3% one year ago. Inflation is closing in- finally- on the 2% rate that the Bank of England tries to maintain is a ceiling- A CEILING. UK inflation on this measure was last at 2% in November 2009; in October 2009 it was up by 1.6% year-over-year. Since that time inflation has gone on a wild high roller coaster ride and is only now beginning to get down within a stone's throw of the Bank of England's target. Since December 2009 the HICP has averaged inflation of 3.2%; more than one full percentage point above the ostensible top of the BOE range for a period of 41months. That has to be hard on BOE credibility. Even with an aggressive program of QE, the austerity pursued by fiscal policy kept the economy dipping into recession during this period, accompanied by the inflation overshoot.  
</p><p>
Core inflation that lags a month was rising by 2.5% year-over-year in March; that's about the same as it was one year ago. Core inflation over this period of the extended headline overshoot has average 2.7%.
</p><p>
The all-item RPI was flat on the month and it is still up by 2.9% over 12 months.  Among the various RPI categories, only food and beverages, housing and housing expenses accelerated in April compared to March. Inflation not only decelerated month-to-month but the price level actually fell for the RPI as well as for the RPI excluding seasonal food. Among RPI categories clothing and footwear prices fell, leisure services prices fell, and leisure goods prices fell. The price of motoring expenditures as well as fares and travel costs also fell. The deceleration of inflation in the UK is broad-based.
</p><p>
While the HICP is very close to the BOE's inflation limit, in the RPI is up by 2.9% Year-over-year and the RPI x is up at the same rate. Only motoring expenses (-1.6%) and leisure goods (0.4%) show year-over-year momentum below the BOE ceiling of 2%. Among the rogue categories are clothing and footwear (6.4%), food and beverages (4.3%), Leisure services (4%), and Housing and Household expenses (3.6%).  
</p><p>
Still, the UK seems to be making progress on the inflation front and on growth at the same time.
</p><p>
<b>Compare to EMU trends through April:</b> We can also look at these UK trends in tandem with the trends we see in the European Monetary Union. There we are focusing on the trends in the original EMU members. We see that over three months the HICP inflation measure is falling in eight of 11 countries. The exceptions are Finland with a monthly rise of 2% Belgium with the monthly gain of 1% and Portugal with a monthly gain of 0.8%: these monthly rates are annualized. In addition, inflation is decelerating in over 70% of the countries in both April and March. 
</p><p>
Over three months the HICP is falling or is flat in five of 11 countries. The unweighted median for the group is a gain of 0.3% in its annualized 3-Mo rate. Over six-months inflation is negative in six of the 11 countries. The Netherlands has the highest annualized inflation rate at 1.8% Greece has the lowest at -2.4%. Over 12-months inflation is negative only and Greece with a 0.6% drop over 12 months. The highest inflation over 12 months is the Netherlands at 2.8% followed by Finland at 2.5% all the other countries are below the 2% ceiling that the ECB seeks in its inflation objective for the overall zone.
</p><p>
In addition to that inflation is decelerating over 12-months in about 91% of the countries. Over six-months it's decelerating in 100% of the countries. Over three months it's decelerating in over 45% of the countries.
</p><p>
Inflation simply doesn't seem to have a purchase anyplace. The challenge for the euro-Zone, for the UK and for the US is clearly shifting to growth. Despite any central bank's objectives it is becoming increasingly clear that growth is what is lacking and inflation is under control. 
</p>

<p><img border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130521.png" width="628" height="334"></p>      
      
      
      </html>

UK inflation broke sharply lower in April, falling by 0.5% after rising 0.4% in March. The twelve-month growth rate for the harmonized consumer price index in the UK is at 2.3% down from a pace of 3% one year ago. Inflation is closing [...]

UK and EMU Inflation Drop

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>

   <p><a href="/comment/130521a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130521a.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130521b_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130521b.png"></a></p>

<p>Consumer spending growth continues to back away from the recent peak. The
International Council of Shopping Centers and Goldman Sachs reported that chain
store sales ticked up just 0.2% (3.1% y/y) last week following two weeks of
sharp decline. As a result, store sales so far this month are 1.9% below the
April average which increased 3.8% m/m to a record high. During the last ten
years there has been a 61% correlation between the y/y change in chain store
sales and the change in retail sales at general merchandise stores. That
correlation recently has declined.</p>
<p>General merchandise store sales account for 15% of total retail sales. The
ICSC-Goldman Sachs 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.</p>
<p>The chain store figures can be found in Haver's <b>SURVEYW</b> database.&nbsp;</p>
<p><b>Fiscal Policy. Oy!</b><b> (With
Reference to Ben Bernanke, Ken Arrow, Thomas Jefferson, William Shakespeare and
the Oracle of Omaha) </b>is last week's speech by Dallas Fed President &amp; CEO
Richard W. Fisher and they can be found <a href="http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/news/speeches/fisher/2013/fs130516.pdf">here</a>.</p>



<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
        <thead>
          <tr>
      <th class="firstcol" scope="col">ICSC-Goldman Sachs (SA,
        1977=100)</th>
      <th scope="col">05/18/13</th>
      <th scope="col">05/11/13</th>
      <th scope="col">05/04/13</th>
      <th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
      <th scope="col">2012</th>
      <th scope="col">2011</th>
      <th scope="col">2010</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr class="odd">
      <td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
      <td>547.9</td>
      <td>546.9</td>
      <td>558.0</td>
      <td>3.1%</td>
      <td>3.0%</td>
      <td>3.2%</td>
      <td>2.9%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; W/W %</td>
      <td>0.2</td>
      <td>-2.0</td>
      <td>-1.0</td>
      <td>--</td>
      <td>--</td>
      <td>--</td>
      <td>--</td>
      </tr>
              </tbody>
            </table>
            </span>
</body></html>
    

Consumer spending growth continues to back away from the recent peak. The International Council of Shopping Centers and Goldman Sachs reported that chain store sales ticked up just 0.2% (3.1% y/y) last week following two weeks of [...]

U.S. Chain Store Sales Continue to Lose Forward Momentum

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>

   <p><a href="/comment/130521c_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130521c.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130521d_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130521d.png"></a></p>

      <p>The upcoming summer driving season is lending strength to gasoline
      prices. The price of<b> regular gasoline</b> gained another seven cents
      last week to $3.67 per gallon, still off a slim 1.1% versus last year.
      Prices remain below the $3.78 per gallon peak reached late in February.
      Haver Analytics constructs seasonal factors to account for seasonal
      volatility and the adjusted price rose w/w to $3.43 per gallon.&nbsp;</p>
      <p>Moving away from the recent high was the price for <b>light sweet crude
      oil.</b> It slipped to $94.97 per barrel (+2.0% y/y) but remained up from
      the recent low of $87.97. Yesterday prices recovered to $96.61. Brent
      crude oil prices also fell last week to $102.87 per barrel (-6.6% y/y) but
      recovered to $104.71 yesterday.</p>
      <p><b>Natural gas </b>prices stabilized last week and ticked up to $3.95
      per mmbtu (58.9% y/y). They rose further yesterday at $4.10.</p>
      <p>The<b> demand for gasoline fell 3.1% y/y last week. </b>Residual fuel
      oil needs, used for heating, fell 14.4% y/y while distillate demand was
      off 3.0% y/y. Gasoline inventories rose 6.5% y/y.</p>
      <p>The energy price data are reported by the U.S. Department of Energy and
      can be found in Haver's <b>WEEKLY </b>database. The daily figures are in <b>DAILY</b>
      and the gasoline demand figures are in <b>OILWKLY.</b>&nbsp;</p>
      
   <p><a href="/comment/130521e_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130521e.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/130521f_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/130521f.png"></a></p>

      
      <table class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col">Weekly Energy Prices</th>
            <th scope="col">05/20/13</th>
            <th scope="col">05/13/13</th>
            <th scope="col">05/06/13</th>
            <th scope="col">Y/Y%</th>
            <th scope="col">2012</th>
            <th scope="col">2011</th>
            <th scope="col">2010</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol">Retail Regular Gasoline ($ per
              Gallon, Regular)</td>
            <td>3.67</td>
            <td>3.60</td>
            <td>3.54</td>
            <td>-1.1</td>
            <td>3.62</td>
            <td>3.52</td>
            <td>2.78</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol">Light Sweet Crude Oil, WTI ($ per
              bbl.)</td>
            <td>94.97</td>
            <td>96.17</td>
            <td>93.72</td>
            <td>2.0</td>
            <td>94.20</td>
            <td>95.14</td>
            <td>79.51</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol">Natural Gas ($/mmbtu)</td>
            <td>3.95</td>
            <td>3.89</td>
            <td>4.21</td>
            <td>58.9</td>
            <td>2.75</td>
            <td>3.99</td>
            <td>4.00</td>
             </tr>
              </tbody>
            </table>
            </span>
</body></html>
          

The upcoming summer driving season is lending strength to gasoline prices. The price of regular gasoline gained another seven cents last week to $3.67 per gallon, still off a slim 1.1% versus last year. Prices remain below the $3.78 [...]

U.S. Gasoline Prices Improve But Crude Oil Prices Slip From High

<html>

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<title>NABE Lowers Projected GDP Growth by Tom Moeller&nbsp; October 22</title>
</head>



<div id="content">
  <div id="rightside">
    <div id="entire" class="col">
    </div>
  </div>
</div>
<div id="content">
  <div id="rightside">
    <div id="entire" class="col">
      <br>
      <span id="articletext"> 
      <p>The upcoming summer driving season is lending strength to gasoline
      prices. The price of<b> regular gasoline</b> gained another seven cents
      last week to $3.67 per gallon, still off a slim 1.1% versus last year.
      Prices remain below the $3.78 per gallon peak reached late in February.
      Haver Analytics constructs seasonal factors to account for seasonal
      volatility and the adjusted price rose w/w to $3.43 per gallon.&nbsp;</p>
      <p>Moving away from the recent high was the price for <b>light sweet crude
      oil.</b> It slipped to $94.97 per barrel (+2.0% y/y) but remained up from
      the recent low of $87.97. Yesterday prices recovered to $96.61. Brent
      crude oil prices also fell last week to $102.87 per barrel (-6.6% y/y) but
      recovered to $104.71 yesterday.</p>
      <p><b>Natural gas </b>prices stabilized last week and ticked up to $3.95
      per mmbtu (58.9% y/y). They rose further yesterday at $4.10.</p>
      <p>The<b> demand for gasoline fell 3.1% y/y last week. </b>Residual fuel
      oil needs, used for heating, fell 14.4% y/y while distillate demand was
      off 3.0% y/y. Gasoline inventories rose 6.5% y/y.</p>
      <p>The energy price data are reported by the U.S. Department of Energy and
      can be found in Haver's <b>WEEKLY </b>database. The daily figures are in <b>DAILY</b>
      and the gasoline demand figures are in <b>OILWKLY.</b>&nbsp;</p>
      <table class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0" width="1231">
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="580">Weekly Energy Prices</th>
            <th scope="col" width="92">05/20/13</th>
            <th scope="col" width="92">05/13/13</th>
            <th scope="col" width="92">05/06/13</th>
            <th scope="col" width="92">Y/Y%</th>
            <th scope="col" width="93">2012</th>
            <th scope="col" width="93">2011</th>
            <th scope="col" width="93">2010</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="580">Retail Regular Gasoline ($ per
              Gallon, Regular)</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">3.67</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">3.60</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">3.54</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">-1.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">3.62</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">3.52</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">2.78</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="580">Light Sweet Crude Oil, WTI ($ per
              bbl.)</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">94.97</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">96.17</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">93.72</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">2.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">94.20</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">95.14</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">79.51</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="580">Natural Gas ($/mmbtu)</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">3.95</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">3.89</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">4.21</td>
            <td align="center" width="92">58.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">2.75</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">3.99</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">4.00</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      </span>
    </div>
  </div>
</div>

<div id="footer" class="sprites">
  <ul>
  </ul>
</div>
<span id="articletitle">U.S. Chain Store Sales Continue to Lose Forward Momentum</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="http://www.haver.com/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;May 21, 2013</span>
<p>Consumer spending growth continues to back away from the recent peak. The
International Council of Shopping Centers and Goldman Sachs reported that chain
store sales ticked up just 0.2% (3.1% y/y) last week following two weeks of
sharp decline. As a result, store sales so far this month are 1.9% below the
April average which increased 3.8% m/m to a record high. During the last ten
years there has been a 61% correlation between the y/y change in chain store
sales and the change in retail sales at general merchandise stores. That
correlation recently has declined.</p>
<p>General merchandise store sales account for 15% of total retail sales. The
ICSC-Goldman Sachs 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.</p>
<p>The chain store figures can be found in Haver's <b>SURVEYW</b> database.&nbsp;</p>
<p><font color="#000000" size="3"><b>Fiscal Policy. Oy!</b></font> <span id="articletext"><font color="#000000" size="3"><b>(With
Reference to Ben Bernanke, Ken Arrow, Thomas Jefferson, William Shakespeare and
the Oracle of Omaha) </b>is last week's speech by Dallas Fed President &amp; CEO
Richard W. Fisher and they can be found here <a href="http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/news/speeches/fisher/2013/fs130516.pdf">http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/news/speeches/fisher/2013/fs130516.pdf</a></font></span></p>
<span id="articletext"><b><font SIZE="5" COLOR="#000000"></font></b>
<table class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0" width="1231">
  <colgroup>
    <col>
    <col>
    <col>
    <col>
    <col>
    <col>
    <col>
    <col>
  </colgroup>
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="536">ICSC-Goldman Sachs (SA,
        1977=100)</th>
      <th scope="col" width="98">05/18/13</th>
      <th scope="col" width="98">05/11/13</th>
      <th scope="col" width="99">05/04/13</th>
      <th scope="col" width="99">Y/Y</th>
      <th scope="col" width="99">2012</th>
      <th scope="col" width="99">2011</th>
      <th scope="col" width="99">2010</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr class="odd">
      <td class="firstcol" width="536">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
      <td align="center" width="98">547.9</td>
      <td align="center" width="98">546.9</td>
      <td align="center" width="99">558.0</td>
      <td align="center" width="99">3.1%</td>
      <td align="center" width="99">3.0%</td>
      <td align="center" width="99">3.2%</td>
      <td align="center" width="99">2.9%</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td class="firstcol" width="536">&nbsp;&nbsp; W/W %</td>
      <td align="center" width="98">0.2</td>
      <td align="center" width="98">-2.0</td>
      <td align="center" width="99">-1.0</td>
      <td align="center" width="99">--</td>
      <td align="center" width="99">--</td>
      <td align="center" width="99">--</td>
      <td align="center" width="99">--</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
</span>




</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: May 2013

Jump to:

U.S. New Home Sales Near Cycle-High as Prices Surge to Record

FHFA Home Price Index Remains in an Uptrend

U.S. Initial Unemployment Insurance Claims Pull Back

EMU Current Account Spurts...Oh My!

UK and EMU Inflation Drop

U.S. Chain Store Sales Continue to Lose Forward Momentum

U.S. Gasoline Prices Improve But Crude Oil Prices Slip From High

U.S. Gasoline Prices Improve But Crude Oil Prices Slip From High