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/040927a.jpg" width="353">
Sales of new single-family homes recovered in August to 1.184M. The 9.4% m/m rise followed declines of 7.3% and 6.2% in the prior two months and the decline in July was revised slightly deeper versus the initial estimate. Consensus estimates had been for August sales of 1.150M. 
Sales rose in each of the country&#39;s regions except the Midwest where they were off 8.3% (-13.3% y/y). In the South sales rose 12.6% (-1.5% y/y) and in the West sales jumped 19.5% (13.7% y/y). Sales in the Northeast rose 6.1% after two months of sharp decline (-7.9% y/y).
The median price of a new single family home fell 2.6% m/m to $208,900 (9.7% y/y) but the previously reported July decline was revised to a slight rise.

<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/@E904/@E90401/@E90401.HTM"> Homes Sales (000s, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Aug</th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">New Single-Family</td>
<td>1,184</td>
<td>1,082</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>1,089</td>
<td>976</td>
<td>907</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Sales of new single-family homes recovered in August to 1.184M. The 9.4% m/m rise followed declines of 7.3% and 6.2% in the prior two months and the decline in July was revised slightly deeper versus the initial estimate. Consensus [...]

New Home Sales Higher

Carol Stone, CBE

<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/040924e.jpg" width="353">
Capital goods orders in the UK, that is, in the &quot;engineering&quot; sector, were reported today for July. Total new orders were up 1.1% in the month, with orders on hand (i.e., the order &quot;backlog&quot; or &quot;book&quot;) rising 0.3%. (See the first graph.) Through their wide month-to-month swings, new orders appear to be forming a bottoming pattern, perhaps a precursor to some strengthening ahead.
The UK&#39;s Office for National Statistics (ONS) gives two breakdowns of these orders. Industries are shown in two broad groupings, materials and equipment and electrical and optical equipment. New orders in the former division, with a July index level of 105.4, have hovered near the 2000 base level since the origin of these data in 1996. The other category, electrical, has shown more cyclicality. New orders there were at 71.3 in July, still nearly 29% below their average in the year 2000. Obviously, Britain&#39;s high tech sector has not yet recovered from its post-Y2K decline.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/040924d.jpg" width="353">
The ONS also tells us the origin of these orders, whether they come from domestic or foreign customers. Unlike Germany, whose industrial orders we discussed here a couple of weeks ago, in the UK, domestic orders are running firmer than foreign demand. This is particularly the case for the electrical/optical sector. Both domestic and foreign orders have sagged from their peaks in 2000, but new orders for export have fallen to just 60% of their 2000 volume while domestic orders are about 80%. (See second graph.) This hardly says that domestic orders are &quot;strong&quot; by pre-2000 standards, but they fell less during the downturn and bottomed sooner -- a 12-month moving average stopped falling in September 2002 -- than foreign orders, of which a 12-month average continued to decline until mid-2003.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Index, 2000=100, SA</th>
<th scope="col">July 2004</th>
<th scope="col">June 2004</th>
<th scope="col">May 2004</th>
<th scope="col">July 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total New Orders</td>
<td>81.8</td>
<td>80.9</td>
<td>83.5</td>
<td>-2.5</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>-10.2</td>
<td>-10.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Home (Domestic)</td>
<td>88.9</td>
<td>88.3</td>
<td>89.4</td>
<td>-2.2</td>
<td>4.5</td>
<td>-7.6</td>
<td>-5.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Foreign (Export)</td>
<td>72.4</td>
<td>70.9</td>
<td>75.6</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>-6.3</td>
<td>-14.1</td>
<td>-17.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Ratio: Foreign/Home: Total</td>
<td>0.81</td>
<td>0.80</td>
<td>0.86</td>
<td>0.82</td>
<td>0.74</td>
<td>0.82</td>
<td>0.89</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Machinery &amp; Equipment</td>
<td>0.95</td>
<td>0.97</td>
<td>1.09</td>
<td>1.00</td>
<td>0.88</td>
<td>0.94</td>
<td>0.91</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Electrical &amp; Optical Equip</td>
<td>0.78</td>
<td>0.75</td>
<td>0.76</td>
<td>0.76</td>
<td>0.71</td>
<td>0.79</td>
<td>0.91</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Capital goods orders in the UK, that is, in the "engineering" sector, were reported today for July. Total new orders were up 1.1% in the month, with orders on hand (i.e., the order "backlog" or "book") rising 0.3%. (See the first [...]

UK "Engineering" Orders Gain in July; Home Market More Stable than Export Demand

<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/040924c.jpg" width="353">
Existing single family home sales fell 2.7% in August to 6.54M following an unrevised 2.9% drop in July. Consensus expectations had been for a lesser decline to 6.72M.
The figures reflect closings of home sales in earlier months.
Sales fell across the nation except in the Northeast where they were unchanged m/m (+1/4% y/y).
The median price of an existing home fell slightly for the second month to $190,100 (+7.3% y/y).
The latest release from the National Association of Realtors is available <a href="http://www.realtor.org/rmodaily.nsf/pages/News2004092401"> 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">Aug</th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Existing Single-Family</td>
<td>&nbsp;6,540</td>
<td>&nbsp;6,720</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>6,098</td>
<td>5,593</td>
<td>5,290</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Existing single family home sales fell 2.7% in August to 6.54M following an unrevised 2.9% drop in July. Consensus expectations had been for a lesser decline to 6.72M. The figures reflect closings of home sales in earlier months. [...]

U.S. Existing Home Sales Fell A Second Month

<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/040924a.jpg" width="353">
Mass layoffs in the US as reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics plunged 61.4% in August to the lowest level since August 2000. The decline, however, followed sharp increases in the prior two months.
The number of firms reporting mass layoffs in August fell to 809 from 2,094 in July.
These layoffs generated 69,033 (-48.4% y/y) initial claims for unemployment insurance, down a sharp 72.8% m/m.
Since the series inception in 1995 there has been a (negative) 45% correlation between the number of initial claims generated by mass layoffs and the one month change in non-farm payrolls.
The Mass Layoff Statistics (MLS) program collects reports on mass layoff actions that result in workers being separated from their jobs. Monthly mass layoff numbers are from establishments which have at least 50 initial claims for unemployment insurance (UI) filed against them during a 5-week period. Extended mass layoff numbers (issued quarterly) are from a subset of such establishments--where private sector non-farm employers indicate that 50 or more workers were separated from their jobs for at least 31 days.
Creative destruction and heightened job uncertainty are explored in this paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia titled <a href="http://www.phil.frb.org/files/br/brq304ln.pdf"> &quot;CEOs, Clerks, Computers, and the Rise of Competition in the Late 20th Century.&quot;</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/@EF/@EF10/@EF1001/@EF1001.HTM"> Mass Layoffs</a></th>
<th scope="col"> Aug</th>
<th scope="col"> July</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"> 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Number of Events: All Industries</td>
<td>809</td>
<td>2,094</td>
<td>-35.7%</td>
<td>18,963</td>
<td>20,277</td>
<td>21,467</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Numbers of Persons Filing Initial Unemployment Insurance Claim: All Industries</td>
<td>69,033</td>
<td>253,929</td>
<td>-48.4%</td>
<td>1,888,926</td>
<td>2,245,051</td>
<td>2,514,862</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Mass layoffs in the US as reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics plunged 61.4% in August to the lowest level since August 2000. The decline, however, followed sharp increases in the prior two months. The number of firms reporting [...]

Mass Layoffs Plunge

<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/040924b.jpg" width="353">
Volatile orders for aircraft &amp; parts dominated the durable goods figures again in August as a 35.1% m/m decline followed a 37.3% July surge. This pulled total durable goods orders down 0.5% last month following a 1.8% jump in July that was little revised. Consensus expectations had been for no change in total August orders. Less aircraft durable orders were quite strong, up 2.5% (11.3% y/y) following a 0.4% decline in July. 
Commercial aircraft orders retraced nearly all of the doubling of bookings in July.
The volatility in aircraft orders pulled total nondefense capital goods orders down 7.4%. Less aircraft, capital goods orders still fell 0.5% (11.2% y/y), the fourth monthly decline in the last five.
Orders for computers &amp; electronic products recouped most of a 4.3% decline in July with a 4.1% (+4.3% y/y) August rise. Computer orders only gained back 0.8% (0.3% y/y) of the 5.2% July plunge but orders for communications equipment added 6.8% (1.3% y/y) to the 5.3% July strength. Orders for electrical equipment, appliance &amp; components rose 1.8% (9.2% y/y) after a 6.7% spike in July. Machinery orders were unchanged (17.5% y/y) following moderate gains in the prior three months.
&quot;The Software Patent Experiment&quot; from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia can be found <a href="http://www.phil.frb.org/files/br/brq304rh.pdf"> here</a>.
During the last ten years there has been an 80% correlation between the y/y change in real nonresidential fixed investment in equipment &amp; software and the change in orders for nondefense capital goods. The correlation with shipments has been 93%.
Shipments of durable goods jumped 1.7% (13.4% y/y) following a 0.4% July rise. Shipments excluding the transportation sector, which were pumped by the motor vehicle and the aircraft sectors, rose 0.7% (+14.9% y/y).
Durable inventories rose 0.6% (5.1% y/y) following an upwardly revised 1.1% July spike.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED01/@ED0101/@ED0101.HTM"> NAICS Classification</a></th>
<th scope="col">Aug</th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"> 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Durable Goods Orders</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>11.7%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>-10.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non-defense Capital Goods</td>
<td>-7.4%</td>
<td>9.3%</td>
<td>13.0%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>-7.2%</td>
<td>-15.5%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Volatile orders for aircraft & parts dominated the durable goods figures again in August as a 35.1% m/m decline followed a 37.3% July surge. This pulled total durable goods orders down 0.5% last month following a 1.8% jump in July [...]

U.S. Durable Goods Orders Down: Aircraft Orders Quite Volatile

<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/040924b.jpg" width="353">
Volatile orders for aircraft &amp; parts dominated the durable goods figures again in August as a 35.1% m/m decline followed a 37.3% July surge. This pulled total durable goods orders down 0.5% last month following a 1.8% jump in July that was little revised. Consensus expectations had been for no change in total August orders. Less aircraft durable orders were quite strong, up 2.5% (11.3% y/y) following a 0.4% decline in July. 
Commercial aircraft orders retraced nearly all of the doubling of bookings in July.
The volatility in aircraft orders pulled total nondefense capital goods orders down 7.4%. Less aircraft, capital goods orders still fell 0.5% (11.2% y/y), the fourth monthly decline in the last five.
Orders for computers &amp; electronic products recouped most of a 4.3% decline in July with a 4.1% (+4.3% y/y) August rise. Computer orders only gained back 0.8% (0.3% y/y) of the 5.2% July plunge but orders for communications equipment added 6.8% (1.3% y/y) to the 5.3% July strength. Orders for electrical equipment, appliance &amp; components rose 1.8% (9.2% y/y) after a 6.7% spike in July. Machinery orders were unchanged (17.5% y/y) following moderate gains in the prior three months.
&quot;The Software Patent Experiment&quot; from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia can be found <a href="http://www.phil.frb.org/files/br/brq304rh.pdf"> here</a>.
During the last ten years there has been an 80% correlation between the y/y change in real nonresidential fixed investment in equipment &amp; software and the change in orders for nondefense capital goods. The correlation with shipments has been 93%.
Shipments of durable goods jumped 1.7% (13.4% y/y) following a 0.4% July rise. Shipments excluding the transportation sector, which were pumped by the motor vehicle and the aircraft sectors, rose 0.7% (+14.9% y/y).
Durable inventories rose 0.6% (5.1% y/y) following an upwardly revised 1.1% July spike.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED01/@ED0101/@ED0101.HTM"> NAICS Classification</a></th>
<th scope="col">Aug</th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"> 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Durable Goods Orders</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>11.7%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>-10.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non-defense Capital Goods</td>
<td>-7.4%</td>
<td>9.3%</td>
<td>13.0%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>-7.2%</td>
<td>-15.5%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Mass Layoffs Plunge 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> September 24, 2004


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/040924a.jpg" width="353">
Mass layoffs in the US as reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics plunged 61.4% in August to the lowest level since August 2000. The decline, however, followed sharp increases in the prior two months.
The number of firms reporting mass layoffs in August fell to 809 from 2,094 in July.
These layoffs generated 69,033 (-48.4% y/y) initial claims for unemployment insurance, down a sharp 72.8% m/m.
Since the series inception in 1995 there has been a (negative) 45% correlation between the number of initial claims generated by mass layoffs and the one month change in non-farm payrolls.
The Mass Layoff Statistics (MLS) program collects reports on mass layoff actions that result in workers being separated from their jobs. Monthly mass layoff numbers are from establishments which have at least 50 initial claims for unemployment insurance (UI) filed against them during a 5-week period. Extended mass layoff numbers (issued quarterly) are from a subset of such establishments--where private sector non-farm employers indicate that 50 or more workers were separated from their jobs for at least 31 days.
Creative destruction and heightened job uncertainty are explored in this paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia titled <a href="http://www.phil.frb.org/files/br/brq304ln.pdf"> &quot;CEOs, Clerks, Computers, and the Rise of Competition in the Late 20th Century.&quot;</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/@EF/@EF10/@EF1001/@EF1001.HTM"> Mass Layoffs</a></th>
<th scope="col"> Aug</th>
<th scope="col"> July</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"> 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Number of Events: All Industries</td>
<td>809</td>
<td>2,094</td>
<td>-35.7%</td>
<td>18,963</td>
<td>20,277</td>
<td>21,467</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Numbers of Persons Filing Initial Unemployment Insurance Claim: All Industries</td>
<td>69,033</td>
<td>253,929</td>
<td>-48.4%</td>
<td>1,888,926</td>
<td>2,245,051</td>
<td>2,514,862</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Existing Home Sales Fell A Second Month 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> September 24, 2004


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/040924c.jpg" width="353">
Existing single family home sales fell 2.7% in August to 6.54M following an unrevised 2.9% drop in July. Consensus expectations had been for a lesser decline to 6.72M.
The figures reflect closings of home sales in earlier months.
Sales fell across the nation except in the Northeast where they were unchanged m/m (+1/4% y/y).
The median price of an existing home fell slightly for the second month to $190,100 (+7.3% y/y).
The latest release from the National Association of Realtors is available <a href="http://www.realtor.org/rmodaily.nsf/pages/News2004092401"> 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">Aug</th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Existing Single-Family</td>
<td>&nbsp;6,540</td>
<td>&nbsp;6,720</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>6,098</td>
<td>5,593</td>
<td>5,290</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

<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/040923e.jpg" width="353">
Today, Statistics New Zealand published that nation&#39;s second quarter current account. As with South Africa yesterday, there was notable deterioration. In New Zealand, though, both trade and income balances contributed to the larger deficit. At NZ$2,074 million, the current account had only the third deficit larger than NZ$2.0 billion in the 17-year history of this balance of payments compilation.
The balance on goods and services trade, often in sizable surplus, shrank to nearly zero in Q2. A surge in goods imports of 11.5% was the main force, illustrated in the first graph; the country&#39;s separate trade data indicate that, as in many other countries, &quot;mineral fuels&quot; imports were up sharply. At the same time, exports of goods were far from weak, with a gain of 7.3% (quarterly percent changes), extending their recovery for a third quarter.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/040923f.jpg" width="353">
Another major factor in New Zealand&#39;s current account is the balance on income and transfers. This deficit of $2.1 billion in Q2 is the largest ever. Foreign investment is important in New Zealand, and its expansion last year is now leading to more outflows of investment income this year, as seen in the second graph. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Seasonally Adjusted, Million NZ$</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 2004</th>
<th scope="col">Q1 2004</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Current Account Balance </td>
<td>-2074</td>
<td>-1520</td>
<td>-1225</td>
<td>-5624</td>
<td>-3949</td>
<td>-2962</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Balance on Goods &amp; Services</td>
<td>+30</td>
<td>+267</td>
<td>+161</td>
<td>+842</td>
<td>+2168</td>
<td>+3716</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Exports of Goods -- %Chg</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>-7.6%</td>
<td>-5.4%</td>
<td>11.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Imports of Goods -- %Chg</td>
<td>11.5%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>-1.9%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Balance on Income &amp; Current Transfers</td>
<td>-2104</td>
<td>-1786</td>
<td>-1386</td>
<td>-6466</td>
<td>-6117</td>
<td>-6677</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Today, Statistics New Zealand published that nation's second quarter current account. As with South Africa yesterday, there was notable deterioration. In New Zealand, though, both trade and income balances contributed to the larger [...]

New Zealand Current Account Deteriorates in Q2

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

Andrew Cates

**China-US shipping activity** 
The economic fallout from escalating US-China trade tensions is becoming increasingly visible in the data. A clear example is the chart below, which highlights a sharp drop in vessel arrivals at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, along with a notable decline in ships waiting offshore. These trends point to a tangible weakening in bilateral trade flows, as the effects of tit-for-tat tariffs imposed by both countries begin to bite. Given the outsized role the US and China play in global commerce, this slowdown is likely to reverberate through global supply chains, weighing on trade volumes, dampening demand, and curbing economic growth worldwide.

250501Z1.jpg

**GDP growth in Q1**
Data this week showed that the US economy contracted, albeit modestly, in Q1 even as the euro area recorded a modest expansion—an unusual divergence. The contraction in US GDP can be largely attributed to a sharp increase in imports, as firms rushed to front-load purchases ahead of anticipated tariff hikes. In addition, domestic demand was subdued, with weaker contributions from both consumer spending and government consumption. This decoupling between the US and euro area economies is particularly striking given the current global focus on the US dollar. While the euro area has shown unexpected signs of resilience, the US downturn raises important questions about its underlying momentum, especially as trade dynamics and policy uncertainty continue to cloud the outlook.

250501Z2.jpg

**The US dollar versus yield differentials**
Chart 3 below illustrates a sharp breakdown in the correlation between the US-Germany 10-year yield differential and the EUR/USD exchange rate. Historically, the dollar has moved closely with interest rate spreads, as yield-seeking capital flowed into US assets. But since early 2025—and more acutely following the April tariff actions—the dollar has weakened markedly even as the yield spread has narrowed only modestly. This decoupling underscores a critical shift: capital markets are reacting not just to monetary policy, but to rising trade and geopolitical uncertainty. In other words, the exchange rate is now being driven as much by risk sentiment as by interest rate arbitrage.

250501Z3.jpg

**The US economy’s structural outperformance and the dollar**
A second dynamic, captured in the next chart, reveals a tight correlation between the US real effective exchange rate and the potential GDP growth differential between the US and euro area over the past 50-60 years. This raises the question: has dollar strength (until recently) merely been a reflection of US growth leadership—or are capital inflows themselves helping to sustain this growth outperformance? In effect, the tail may be wagging the dog. Global investors have long allocated capital to the US, attracted by its macroeconomic resilience, technological leadership, and deep, liquid financial markets. The danger now is that the US trade war may disrupt this equilibrium. A sharp or sustained reduction in capital inflows could undermine growth, weaken the dollar, and trigger broader financial instability. Moreover, reversing this dynamic is not straightforward—barring a credible structural resurgence in European (or Asian) growth, the global investment landscape remains tilted toward the US.

250501Z4.jpg

**US competitiveness versus Europe, China and Japan** 
The next chart below examines relative unit labour costs across major economies since 2011. The US and China have seen a broadly similar trajectory, with steady increases in relative cost structures, while the euro area has remained flat and Japan has seen dramatic improvement. This suggests that, from a cost competitiveness standpoint, the US is not uniquely disadvantaged vis-à-vis China. However, as we discuss further below, this parallel erosion of cost competitiveness is occurring at much higher nominal wage levels in the US, which blunts its ability to regain export share through tariff-related shifts alone. The trade war strategy—absent a corresponding improvement in productivity or structural reforms—risks imposing costs without delivering material competitiveness gains.

250501Z5.jpg

**Average wages in selected developed and developing economies**
This point is reinforced by the final chart, which shows estimates for average monthly wages across countries in 2024. US labour remains much more expensive than in peer or emerging economies. So even if China’s costs rise in tandem with the US, the global supply chain has ample alternatives. 'China plus one' strategies are accelerating, and the US remains structurally misaligned with low-cost production hubs. Tariffs aimed at reshoring supply chains are unlikely to deliver sustained gains unless accompanied by deep supply-side reforms, and risk further disincentivizing foreign direct investment if global firms perceive US trade policy as erratic or punitive.

250501Z6.jpg

Financial markets found a measure of calm this week, buoyed by some subtle shifts in tone from US policymakers. A softening in the administration’s rhetoric around trade tariffs coupled with a less confrontational stance toward Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, helped ease tensions that had roiled markets earlier in the month. Equities rebounded modestly, and volatility indicators edged lower, reflecting cautious optimism that the worst of the policy shocks may be behind us. But beneath the surface, significant downside risks persist. New shipping data point to a pronounced slowdown in US-China trade flows (chart 1), suggesting the damage from recent tariff escalations is already rippling through global supply chains. Meanwhile, incoming data for the US revealed an unexpected contraction in the economy in Q1 and further signs of weakness in the labour market (chart 2). The US dollar, in the meantime, while long supported by superior growth and yield differentials, has begun to decouple from traditional drivers (charts 3 and 4) suggesting growing pressure on capital flows. At the same time, structural imbalances are drawing renewed scrutiny: unit labour cost comparisons show the US steadily losing competitiveness (chart 5), while nominal wage disparities remain stark versus China and other Asian economies, further complicating any effort to restore trade balance without broader reforms (chart 6). In short, while markets may be drawing temporary comfort from a pause in tariff brinkmanship, the deeper economic and financial vulnerabilities exposed this month remain unresolved—and increasingly central to the global macro narrative.

Charts of the Week: Tariff Truce, Tenuous Trust

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.

Economy in Brief: September 2004

Jump to:

New Home Sales Higher

New Home Sales Higher

UK "Engineering" Orders Gain in July; Home Market More Stable than Export Demand

U.S. Existing Home Sales Fell A Second Month

Mass Layoffs Plunge

U.S. Durable Goods Orders Down: Aircraft Orders Quite Volatile

U.S. Durable Goods Orders Down: Aircraft Orders Quite Volatile

New Zealand Current Account Deteriorates in Q2