Tom Moeller

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060726c.jpg" width="353">
The National Activity Index (CFNAI) from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago rose to the highest level (0.34) since March. The gain, nevertheless, failed to prevent the 2Q average from falling to 0.11 from 0.24 in 1Q.
The three-month moving average of the CFNAI remained stable with May at that 0.11 level which is the lowest since October.
A zero value of the CFNAI indicates that the economy is expanding at its historical trend rate of growth and during the last twenty years there has been a 68% correlation between the level of the CFNAI and q/q growth in real GDP.
The CFNAI is a weighted average of 85 indicators of economic activity. The indicators reflect activity in the following categories: production and income, the labor market, personal consumption and housing, manufacturing and trade sales, and inventories &amp; orders.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060726d.jpg" width="353">
The latest CFNAI report is available <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/economic_research_and_data/files/cfnai_July2006.pdf">here</a>.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond reported that its July Composite Index from the manufacturing survey rose to the highest level (12) since April. During the last ten years there has been a 38% correlation between the diffusion index level and the one month change in U.S. manufacturing industrial production. The July report can be found <a href="http://www.richmondfed.org/research/regional_conditions/manufacturing_conditions/index.cfm"> here</a>.
The Richmond Fed&#39;s survey of the service sector, conversely, deteriorated in July. The percentage of firms reporting increasing revenues was negative (-3) for the first month in nearly two years. The latest report is available <a href="http://www.richmondfed.org/research/regional_conditions/service_sector/index.cfm"> here</a>.
Economy on cruise control through 2007 from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago can be found <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedletter/cflaugust2006_229a.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/SURVEYS/@S5/@S503/@S503.HTM">Chicago Fed</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">June &#39;05</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">CFNAI</td>
<td>0.34</td>
<td>-0.14</td>
<td>0.36</td>
<td>0.20</td>
<td>0.37</td>
<td>-0.11</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The National Activity Index (CFNAI) from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago rose to the highest level (0.34) since March. The gain, nevertheless, failed to prevent the 2Q average from falling to 0.11 from 0.24 in 1Q. The three-month [...]

Chicago Fed Nat'l Activity & Richmond Fed Factory Indexes 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/060726b.jpg" width="353">
The total number of mortgage applications fell another 1.3% last week and pulled applications so far in July down 1.0% from the prior month&#39;s average. Applications in June fell 1.5% from May.
Purchase applications added 2.4% to the prior week&#39;s 6.2% steep decline. Therefore, in July the average number of applications are 0.3% below June which fell 0.8% from May.
During the last ten years there has been a 58% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing single family home sales.
Applications to refinance recovered 0.6% of the 1.6% declines during the prior two weeks. The small increase left the July average 2.3% below the prior month and refis during all of June fell 3.1% from the May average.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060726a.jpg" width="353">
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage fell five basis points w/w to 6.91%. The peak for 30 year financing was 7.08% late in June. The rate on 15-year financing also fell six basis points to 6.57% and the peak rate was 6.75%. Interest rates on 15 and 30 year mortgages are closely correlated (&gt;90%) with the rate on 10 year Treasury securities.
During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 79% correlation between the level of applications for purchase and the effective interest rate on a 30-year mortgage.
The Mortgage Bankers Association surveys between 20 to 35 of the top lenders in the U.S. housing industry to derive its refinance, purchase and market indexes. The weekly survey accounts for more than 40% of all applications processed each week by mortgage lenders. Visit the Mortgage Bankers Association site <a href="http://www.mbaa.org">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/@S5/@S5.HTM">MBA Mortgage Applications (3/16/90=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">07/21/06</th>
<th scope="col">07/14/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>533.8</td>
<td>540.8</td>
<td>-29.2%</td>
<td>708.6</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>389.0</td>
<td>398.5</td>
<td>-19.8%</td>
<td>470.9</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>1,385.2</td>
<td>1,377.6</td>
<td>-40.3%</td>
<td>2,092.3</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The total number of mortgage applications fell another 1.3% last week and pulled applications so far in July down 1.0% from the prior month's average. Applications in June fell 1.5% from May. Purchase applications added 2.4% to the [...]

Mortgage Applications Wilt Under Summer Heat

<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/060726b.jpg" width="353">
The total number of mortgage applications fell another 1.3% last week and pulled applications so far in July down 1.0% from the prior month&#39;s average. Applications in June fell 1.5% from May.
Purchase applications added 2.4% to the prior week&#39;s 6.2% steep decline. Therefore, in July the average number of applications are 0.3% below June which fell 0.8% from May.
During the last ten years there has been a 58% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing single family home sales.
Applications to refinance recovered 0.6% of the 1.6% declines during the prior two weeks. The small increase left the July average 2.3% below the prior month and refis during all of June fell 3.1% from the May average.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060726a.jpg" width="353">
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage fell five basis points w/w to 6.91%. The peak for 30 year financing was 7.08% late in June. The rate on 15-year financing also fell six basis points to 6.57% and the peak rate was 6.75%. Interest rates on 15 and 30 year mortgages are closely correlated (&gt;90%) with the rate on 10 year Treasury securities.
During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 79% correlation between the level of applications for purchase and the effective interest rate on a 30-year mortgage.
The Mortgage Bankers Association surveys between 20 to 35 of the top lenders in the U.S. housing industry to derive its refinance, purchase and market indexes. The weekly survey accounts for more than 40% of all applications processed each week by mortgage lenders. Visit the Mortgage Bankers Association site <a href="http://www.mbaa.org">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/@S5/@S5.HTM">MBA Mortgage Applications (3/16/90=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">07/21/06</th>
<th scope="col">07/14/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>533.8</td>
<td>540.8</td>
<td>-29.2%</td>
<td>708.6</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>389.0</td>
<td>398.5</td>
<td>-19.8%</td>
<td>470.9</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>1,385.2</td>
<td>1,377.6</td>
<td>-40.3%</td>
<td>2,092.3</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
 Chicago Fed Nat'l Activity & Richmond Fed Factory Indexes Up 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 26, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060726c.jpg" width="353">
The National Activity Index (CFNAI) from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago rose to the highest level (0.34) since March. The gain, nevertheless, failed to prevent the 2Q average from falling to 0.11 from 0.24 in 1Q.
The three-month moving average of the CFNAI remained stable with May at that 0.11 level which is the lowest since October.
A zero value of the CFNAI indicates that the economy is expanding at its historical trend rate of growth and during the last twenty years there has been a 68% correlation between the level of the CFNAI and q/q growth in real GDP.
The CFNAI is a weighted average of 85 indicators of economic activity. The indicators reflect activity in the following categories: production and income, the labor market, personal consumption and housing, manufacturing and trade sales, and inventories &amp; orders.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060726d.jpg" width="353">
The latest CFNAI report is available <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/economic_research_and_data/files/cfnai_July2006.pdf">here</a>.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond reported that its July Composite Index from the manufacturing survey rose to the highest level (12) since April. During the last ten years there has been a 38% correlation between the diffusion index level and the one month change in U.S. manufacturing industrial production. The July report can be found <a href="http://www.richmondfed.org/research/regional_conditions/manufacturing_conditions/index.cfm"> here</a>.
The Richmond Fed&#39;s survey of the service sector, conversely, deteriorated in July. The percentage of firms reporting increasing revenues was negative (-3) for the first month in nearly two years. The latest report is available <a href="http://www.richmondfed.org/research/regional_conditions/service_sector/index.cfm"> here</a>.
Economy on cruise control through 2007 from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago can be found <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedletter/cflaugust2006_229a.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/SURVEYS/@S5/@S503/@S503.HTM">Chicago Fed</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">June &#39;05</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">CFNAI</td>
<td>0.34</td>
<td>-0.14</td>
<td>0.36</td>
<td>0.20</td>
<td>0.37</td>
<td>-0.11</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
UK CBI Industrial Trends Survey Yields Mixed Picture 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> July 26, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060726e.jpg" width="353">
Yesterday, Louise Curley wrote about improving business confidence in three European nations, France, Italy and the Netherlands. In the UK the situation is somewhat ambiguous, according to the July survey of the Confederation of British Industries (CBI). The key monthly series, the total order book in volume terms, improved modestly, as it moved to -11 for July from -12 in June and May. At the same time these are obviously still negative, but they are all better readings than prevailed during much of 2005, which averaged -20. Export orders faltered this month. They reached 0 in May, the first non-negative reading since February 1996, but have drifted off in the two succeeding months to -6 for July. This appears to reverse the situation that had seemed to be in place in which domestic demand was fading while the export sector improved.
The CBI also published their quarterly data, which query companies&#39; general sentiment and strategic plans. The measure on overall business sentiment deteriorated to -6 for Q3 from -2 in Q2. Even so, conditions are viewed less negatively than most of the time over the last five years. Sentiment about exports actually turned positive during last quarter and this, suggesting the downturn in orders reported above may be temporary.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060726f.jpg" width="353">
Another favorable turn comes in the area of plant capacity. The proportion of companies that believe their capacity is adequate for their production plans in the coming year fell to 83%, the lowest reading since Q4 1997. In the interim, this share has run as high as 94% and that as recently as Q3 2003. When that many companies believe they have enough capacity, it&#39;s hard to anticipate there would be much capital expenditure. Now, as the adequacy ratio has fallen, the outlook for plant and equipment outlays has improved to a -9% balance in Q2 and -10% in Q3 from -23% back in 2003 when the adequacy ratio was near its recent peak. (The all-time high adequacy ratio was 99% during the 1980 recession.)<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060726g.jpg" width="353">
Thus, British industry managers see their outlook in fairly murky terms. Orders are improved but still falling. Export markets look stronger, but then they fade. Capital spending plans look better, but they are still declining at more companies than rising. In the Q2 GDP report last week, we saw the manufacturing sector with its first year-on-year increase since late 2004. But there are still numerous questions about demand prospects, energy prices and other uncertainties to presume this outcome will improve further or even be sustained. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/UK/@U9/@U9.HTM">UK: % Balance</a></th>
<th scope="col">July 2006</th>
<th scope="col">June 2006</th>
<th scope="col">May 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Year Ago</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">CBI Total Orders</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>-20</td>
<td>-21</td>
<td>-9</td>
<td>-29</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Export Orders</td>
<td>-6</td>
<td>-3</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-20</td>
<td>-13</td>
<td>-33</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Q3 2006</td>
<td>Q2 2006</td>
<td>Q1 2006</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Overall Business Optimism</td>
<td>-6</td>
<td>-2</td>
<td>-14</td>
<td>-16</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>-17</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Optimism re Exports</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>-8</td>
<td>-6</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>-15</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Adequate Capacity</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>90</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>90</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>93</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Plant &amp; Machinery Expenditures next 12 months</td>
<td>-10</td>
<td>-9</td>
<td>-14</td>
<td>-15</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-3</td>
<td>-21</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Louise Curley

<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/060725a.jpg" width="353">
Italy and the Netherlands reported today on surveys of business and consumer confidence and France reported on business confidence. Despite slight dips in consumer confidence in the Netherlands and in business confidence in Italy, confidence measures in these three countries show improving trends
Consumers are still not very confident. In the Netherlands, the balance of optimists over pessimists dropped from 5% in June to 2% in July. What improvement that has taken place in the Netherlands has been due largely to a decline in the number of pessimists rather than an increase in optimists. In July 2005, the balance was -23%. Although there was an improvement in consumer confidence in Italy in July as the index of consumer confidence rose 1.7% from 89.5 (2000=100) in June to 91.0 in July, confidence continues well below the levels of 2000. (We have used the index function in the advanced functions to change the reported index base of 1980 to 2000) The first chart shows consumer confidence in Italy and the Netherlands.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060725b.jpg" width="353">
Business confidence, in contrast to that of consumers, has improved significantly over the past year. Although confidence in Italy dropped 1.6% in July from June, it was 11.5% above July, 2005. In the Netherlands, business confidence increased by 2.8 percentage points in July to 9.2% from 6.4% in June and was 12.9 percentage points above July, 2005. This is the highest percent balance on record and is above the recent peak of 8.2% in October, 2000. Measures of business confidence in Italy and the Netherlands are shown in the second chart.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060725c.jpg" width="353">
Business confidence also rose in France in July to 109 from 107 in June and from 101 in July, 2005. The French measure of business confidence is a composite of the balance of opinions on the following issues: production over the past three months, forecasts of production over the next three months, inventories, total order books, foreign order books and selling price expectations over the next three months. The indicator is constructed such that it has an average of 100 and a standard deviation of 10.
In addition to the business climate indicator INSEE (Institut Nationale de las Stastiques et des Etudes Economiques) also computes a qualitative indicator--Business Cycle Turning Point--that attempts to detect as soon as possible a turning point in the business cycle. The series tracks the difference between the probability that the economy is growing versus the probability that it is contracting. It is evaluated between -1 and +1. A value close to -1 suggests that the economy is contracting significantly; a value close to +1 suggests that the economy is expanding rapidly. A value close to 0 suggests that the economy is operating close to its long term growth rate. In July this indicator had a high value of .68, up from .36 in June and .17 in July, 2005. The Business Cycle Turning Point indicator and the Business Climate indicator are shown in the third chart.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/G10/@GZ/@GZ8/@GZ8.HTM">Measures of Confidence</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jul&nbsp; 06</th>
<th scope="col">Jun 06</th>
<th scope="col">Jul 05</th>
<th scope="col">M/M Dif</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y Dif</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">The Netherlands&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer % Balance</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>-3</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>-25</td>
<td>-35</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business % Balance</td>
<td>9.2</td>
<td>6.4</td>
<td>-3.7</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>12.9</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-5.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer (2000=100)</td>
<td>91.0</td>
<td>89.5</td>
<td>84.7</td>
<td>1.7*</td>
<td>7.52*</td>
<td>87.3</td>
<td>85.0</td>
<td>88.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business&nbsp; (2000=100)</td>
<td>96.7</td>
<td>98.3</td>
<td>86.7</td>
<td>-1.6*</td>
<td>11.5*</td>
<td>87.5</td>
<td>89.5</td>
<td>88.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business Climate Indicator&nbsp;</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>107</td>
<td>101</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>101</td>
<td>104</td>
<td>95</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business Cycle Turning Point&nbsp;</td>
<td>0.68</td>
<td>0.36</td>
<td>0.17</td>
<td>0.32</td>
<td>0.51</td>
<td>-0.02</td>
<td>0.36</td>
<td>-0.15</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Italy and the Netherlands reported today on surveys of business and consumer confidence and France reported on business confidence. Despite slight dips in consumer confidence in the Netherlands and in business confidence in Italy, [...]

Consumer and Business Confidence Measures in France, Italy and the Netherlands

<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/060725e.jpg" width="353">
Weekly chain store sales edged up 0.2% last week but the rise failed to recover the prior week&#39;s 0.6% decline, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey. 
Together with a similar 0.2% up tick in weekly sales early in the month, these modest increases did not recoup larger w/w declines at the end of June and in mid-July. As a result, sales this month are running 0.7% below the June average. 
Both the June &amp; May average sales levels fell 0.4% from the prior month. During the last ten years there has been a 47% 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.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060725d.jpg" width="353">
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC-UBS fell another 0.2% (-2.2% y/y) in the latest week, the fourth decline in the last five periods.
The weakness in sales undoubtedly is related to continued gains in gasoline prices. During the third week of July the average retail price for regular gas settled at $3.00 per gallon (31.2% y/y) and prices so far in July have averaged $2.98.
A continued gain yesterday in the spot market price of gasoline to $2.89 per gallon (45.3% y/y) portends further gains in retail gas prices. 

<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">07/22/06</th>
<th scope="col">07/15/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>467.1</td>
<td>466.2</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Weekly chain store sales edged up 0.2% last week but the rise failed to recover the prior week's 0.6% decline, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey. Together with a similar 0.2% up tick in [...]

Modest Gains in Weekly Chain Store Sales Leave Month Short

<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/060725f.jpg" width="353">
 Total existing home sales fell 1.3% during June to 6.620M. The decline, however, was slightly less than Consensus expectations for a fall in sales to 6.60M. In addition, it followed a 0.6% May drop that was shallower than originally reported by the National Association of Realtors.
Support for home sales may have derived from an easing in home price inflation. The median price of an existing single-family home did rise 1.3% m/m but the y/y gain fell to 1.1% from a 12.8% annual increase last year. The price figures are not seasonally adjusted.
Sales of single-family homes fell 0.9%, the fifth m/m decline this year. Versus the first six months of 2005 sales this year are down 4.3%
The data cover sales closed in the latest and previous months and contrast to the new home sales (up in May) data which count sales at the signing of a contract.
Sales in the Northeast rose 1,2% m/m (-5.7% y/y) and in the Midwest sales were unchanged (-6.3% y/y). In the South sales fell 2.9% (-4.9% y/y) and in the West (-14.1% y/y) sales rose 0.8% (-16.2% y/y).
The inventory of unsold existing homes surged another 3.8% (39.1% y/y). The supply of unsold single family homes rose 4.9% (35.7% y/y) though the supply of condos &amp; coops for sale fell slightly m/m (+63.1% y/y).
The latest release from the National Association of Realtors is available <a href="http://www.realtor.org/research.nsf/pages/EHSPage?OpenDocument">here</a>.
Texas Housing: A Boom With No Bubble? from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is available <a href="http://dallasfed.org/research/swe/2006/swe0603b.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/@E905/@E90501/@E90501.HTM">Existing Home Sales (000, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Home Sales</td>
<td>&nbsp;6,620</td>
<td>6,710</td>
<td>-8.9%</td>
<td>7,064</td>
<td>6,722</td>
<td>6,176</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Single Family Home Sales</td>
<td>5,810</td>
<td>5,860</td>
<td>-8.2%</td>
<td>6,170</td>
<td>5,912</td>
<td>5,443</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Single Family Median Home Price (000) </td>
<td>$231.5 </td>
<td>$228.5 </td>
<td>1.1% </td>
<td>$206.3</td>
<td>$182.8 </td>
<td>$169.1 </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Total existing home sales fell 1.3% during June to 6.620M. The decline, however, was slightly less than Consensus expectations for a fall in sales to 6.60M. In addition, it followed a 0.6% May drop that was shallower than originally [...]

Price Concessions Support U.S. Existing Home Sales

<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/060725h.jpg" width="353">
Consumer confidence as reported by the Conference Board rose 1.0% in July to 106.5 and added to a 0.7% June increase that was revised down slightly from the initial report. Consensus expectations had been for a decline in confidence to 104.0.
During the last twenty years there has been a 52% correlation between the level of consumer confidence and the y/y change in real consumer spending. The correlation rose to 66% during the last ten years.
The index measuring consumers&#39; expectations rose 1.5% (-4.7% y/y). The rise mostly reflected less pessimism about the outlook for business conditions and jobs in six months rather than an outright rise in optimism about the outlook. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060725g.jpg" width="353">
Expectations for the inflation rate in twelve months held steady at a reduced 5.1%.
Consumers&#39; assessment of the present situation recovered half of the prior month&#39;s decline and rose 0.6% (11.5% y/y). The percentage of respondents who viewed business conditions as good (27.5%) rose and the percentage that viewed jobs as hard to get (19.9%) fell.
The Conference Board&#146;s survey isconducted by a mailed questionnaire to 5,000 households and about 3,500 typically respond.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EF/@EF14/@EF1401/@EF1401.HTM">Conference Board</a></th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>106.5</td>
<td>105.4</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>100.3</td>
<td>96.1</td>
<td>79.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Consumer confidence as reported by the Conference Board rose 1.0% in July to 106.5 and added to a 0.7% June increase that was revised down slightly from the initial report. Consensus expectations had been for a decline in confidence [...]

Consumer Confidence Improved Unexpectedly

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060725h.jpg" width="353">
Consumer confidence as reported by the Conference Board rose 1.0% in July to 106.5 and added to a 0.7% June increase that was revised down slightly from the initial report. Consensus expectations had been for a decline in confidence to 104.0.
During the last twenty years there has been a 52% correlation between the level of consumer confidence and the y/y change in real consumer spending. The correlation rose to 66% during the last ten years.
The index measuring consumers&#39; expectations rose 1.5% (-4.7% y/y). The rise mostly reflected less pessimism about the outlook for business conditions and jobs in six months rather than an outright rise in optimism about the outlook. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060725g.jpg" width="353">
Expectations for the inflation rate in twelve months held steady at a reduced 5.1%.
Consumers&#39; assessment of the present situation recovered half of the prior month&#39;s decline and rose 0.6% (11.5% y/y). The percentage of respondents who viewed business conditions as good (27.5%) rose and the percentage that viewed jobs as hard to get (19.9%) fell.
The Conference Board&#146;s survey isconducted by a mailed questionnaire to 5,000 households and about 3,500 typically respond.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EF/@EF14/@EF1401/@EF1401.HTM">Conference Board</a></th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>106.5</td>
<td>105.4</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>100.3</td>
<td>96.1</td>
<td>79.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Price Concessions Support U.S. Existing Home Sales 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 25, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060725f.jpg" width="353">
 Total existing home sales fell 1.3% during June to 6.620M. The decline, however, was slightly less than Consensus expectations for a fall in sales to 6.60M. In addition, it followed a 0.6% May drop that was shallower than originally reported by the National Association of Realtors.
Support for home sales may have derived from an easing in home price inflation. The median price of an existing single-family home did rise 1.3% m/m but the y/y gain fell to 1.1% from a 12.8% annual increase last year. The price figures are not seasonally adjusted.
Sales of single-family homes fell 0.9%, the fifth m/m decline this year. Versus the first six months of 2005 sales this year are down 4.3%
The data cover sales closed in the latest and previous months and contrast to the new home sales (up in May) data which count sales at the signing of a contract.
Sales in the Northeast rose 1,2% m/m (-5.7% y/y) and in the Midwest sales were unchanged (-6.3% y/y). In the South sales fell 2.9% (-4.9% y/y) and in the West (-14.1% y/y) sales rose 0.8% (-16.2% y/y).
The inventory of unsold existing homes surged another 3.8% (39.1% y/y). The supply of unsold single family homes rose 4.9% (35.7% y/y) though the supply of condos &amp; coops for sale fell slightly m/m (+63.1% y/y).
The latest release from the National Association of Realtors is available <a href="http://www.realtor.org/research.nsf/pages/EHSPage?OpenDocument">here</a>.
Texas Housing: A Boom With No Bubble? from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is available <a href="http://dallasfed.org/research/swe/2006/swe0603b.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/@E905/@E90501/@E90501.HTM">Existing Home Sales (000, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Home Sales</td>
<td>&nbsp;6,620</td>
<td>6,710</td>
<td>-8.9%</td>
<td>7,064</td>
<td>6,722</td>
<td>6,176</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Single Family Home Sales</td>
<td>5,810</td>
<td>5,860</td>
<td>-8.2%</td>
<td>6,170</td>
<td>5,912</td>
<td>5,443</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Single Family Median Home Price (000) </td>
<td>$231.5 </td>
<td>$228.5 </td>
<td>1.1% </td>
<td>$206.3</td>
<td>$182.8 </td>
<td>$169.1 </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Modest Gains in Weekly Chain Store Sales Leave Month Short 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 25, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060725e.jpg" width="353">
Weekly chain store sales edged up 0.2% last week but the rise failed to recover the prior week&#39;s 0.6% decline, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey. 
Together with a similar 0.2% up tick in weekly sales early in the month, these modest increases did not recoup larger w/w declines at the end of June and in mid-July. As a result, sales this month are running 0.7% below the June average. 
Both the June &amp; May average sales levels fell 0.4% from the prior month. During the last ten years there has been a 47% 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.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060725d.jpg" width="353">
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC-UBS fell another 0.2% (-2.2% y/y) in the latest week, the fourth decline in the last five periods.
The weakness in sales undoubtedly is related to continued gains in gasoline prices. During the third week of July the average retail price for regular gas settled at $3.00 per gallon (31.2% y/y) and prices so far in July have averaged $2.98.
A continued gain yesterday in the spot market price of gasoline to $2.89 per gallon (45.3% y/y) portends further gains in retail gas prices. 

<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">07/22/06</th>
<th scope="col">07/15/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>467.1</td>
<td>466.2</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
  Consumer and Business Confidence Measures in France, Italy and the Netherlands   
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> July 25, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060725a.jpg" width="353">
Italy and the Netherlands reported today on surveys of business and consumer confidence and France reported on business confidence. Despite slight dips in consumer confidence in the Netherlands and in business confidence in Italy, confidence measures in these three countries show improving trends
Consumers are still not very confident. In the Netherlands, the balance of optimists over pessimists dropped from 5% in June to 2% in July. What improvement that has taken place in the Netherlands has been due largely to a decline in the number of pessimists rather than an increase in optimists. In July 2005, the balance was -23%. Although there was an improvement in consumer confidence in Italy in July as the index of consumer confidence rose 1.7% from 89.5 (2000=100) in June to 91.0 in July, confidence continues well below the levels of 2000. (We have used the index function in the advanced functions to change the reported index base of 1980 to 2000) The first chart shows consumer confidence in Italy and the Netherlands.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060725b.jpg" width="353">
Business confidence, in contrast to that of consumers, has improved significantly over the past year. Although confidence in Italy dropped 1.6% in July from June, it was 11.5% above July, 2005. In the Netherlands, business confidence increased by 2.8 percentage points in July to 9.2% from 6.4% in June and was 12.9 percentage points above July, 2005. This is the highest percent balance on record and is above the recent peak of 8.2% in October, 2000. Measures of business confidence in Italy and the Netherlands are shown in the second chart.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060725c.jpg" width="353">
Business confidence also rose in France in July to 109 from 107 in June and from 101 in July, 2005. The French measure of business confidence is a composite of the balance of opinions on the following issues: production over the past three months, forecasts of production over the next three months, inventories, total order books, foreign order books and selling price expectations over the next three months. The indicator is constructed such that it has an average of 100 and a standard deviation of 10.
In addition to the business climate indicator INSEE (Institut Nationale de las Stastiques et des Etudes Economiques) also computes a qualitative indicator--Business Cycle Turning Point--that attempts to detect as soon as possible a turning point in the business cycle. The series tracks the difference between the probability that the economy is growing versus the probability that it is contracting. It is evaluated between -1 and +1. A value close to -1 suggests that the economy is contracting significantly; a value close to +1 suggests that the economy is expanding rapidly. A value close to 0 suggests that the economy is operating close to its long term growth rate. In July this indicator had a high value of .68, up from .36 in June and .17 in July, 2005. The Business Cycle Turning Point indicator and the Business Climate indicator are shown in the third chart.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/G10/@GZ/@GZ8/@GZ8.HTM">Measures of Confidence</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jul&nbsp; 06</th>
<th scope="col">Jun 06</th>
<th scope="col">Jul 05</th>
<th scope="col">M/M Dif</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y Dif</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">The Netherlands&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer % Balance</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>-3</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>-25</td>
<td>-35</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business % Balance</td>
<td>9.2</td>
<td>6.4</td>
<td>-3.7</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>12.9</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-5.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer (2000=100)</td>
<td>91.0</td>
<td>89.5</td>
<td>84.7</td>
<td>1.7*</td>
<td>7.52*</td>
<td>87.3</td>
<td>85.0</td>
<td>88.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business&nbsp; (2000=100)</td>
<td>96.7</td>
<td>98.3</td>
<td>86.7</td>
<td>-1.6*</td>
<td>11.5*</td>
<td>87.5</td>
<td>89.5</td>
<td>88.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business Climate Indicator&nbsp;</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>107</td>
<td>101</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>101</td>
<td>104</td>
<td>95</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business Cycle Turning Point&nbsp;</td>
<td>0.68</td>
<td>0.36</td>
<td>0.17</td>
<td>0.32</td>
<td>0.51</td>
<td>-0.02</td>
<td>0.36</td>
<td>-0.15</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</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: July 2006

Jump to:

Chicago Fed Nat'l Activity & Richmond Fed Factory Indexes Up

Mortgage Applications Wilt Under Summer Heat

Mortgage Applications Wilt Under Summer Heat

Consumer and Business Confidence Measures in France, Italy and the Netherlands

Modest Gains in Weekly Chain Store Sales Leave Month Short

Price Concessions Support U.S. Existing Home Sales

Consumer Confidence Improved Unexpectedly

Consumer Confidence Improved Unexpectedly