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/020805a.jpg" width="353">
The Institute for Supply Management business activity index of the nonmanufacturing sector fell more than expected last month, down for the second month from a peak in May. 
The overall index has been above 50, the dividing line for expansion and contraction, since February.
Of the seasonally adjusted subgroups, new orders and imports fell but employment rose slightly. The not seasonally adjusted index of export orders was quite strong. 
The not seasonally adjusted index of prices rose, recouping virtually all of the decline of the prior two months. 
During the last five years, there has been a 51% correlation between the level of the NAPM nonmanufacturing index and quarterly growth in real GDP in the service sector.
Business activity for the nonmanufacturing sector is a question separate from the subgroups mentioned above. In contrast, the NAPM manufacturing sector composite index weights the components.
ISM surveys more than 370 purchasing managers in more than 62 industries including construction, law firms, hospitals, government and retailers. The nonmanufacturing survey dates only to July 1997, therefore its seasonal adjustment should be viewed tentatively.

<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/@EF03/@EF03.HTM">ISM Nonmanufacturing Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Business Activity Index</td>
<td>53.1</td>
<td>57.2</td>
<td>48.5</td>
<td>49.0</td>
<td>59.2</td>
<td>59.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Institute for Supply Management business activity index of the nonmanufacturing sector fell more than expected last month, down for the second month from a peak in May. The overall index has been above 50, the dividing line for [...]

ISM Nonmanufacturing Index Fell Again

<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/020802a.jpg" width="353">
Payrolls rose less than expected last month, but moderate gains in May and June were revised up. Payrolls have fallen 0.1% YTD.
The modest rise in July payrolls was accompanied by a sharp drop in the length of the workweek. As a result, the index of aggregate hours worked (employment times hours worked) fell 0.6% and started the quarter 0.4% below the 2Q average.
Amongst industries, factory sector jobs fell by the least since April 2000. Construction jobs plunged 30,000, or 0.5%, and are down 1.6% so far this year. Jobs in service producing industries rose 46,000 despite a 16,000 decline in government employment. Private service producing jobs are up 0.3% YTD.
The one-month diffusion index for nonfarm payrolls again fell below the 50% level, to 48.4. The level suggests little or no employment growth near term. The three month diffusion index was 50. 
Average hourly earnings rose as expected and the June gain was revised down slightly.
The unemployment rate held steady at it&#39;s high 2Q average. Both employment and the labor force fell.
The employment figures for nonfarm payrolls are based on reports provided to the US Labor Department by businesses, while the figures from which the unemployment rate is derived are based on a survey of US households.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<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/@EB/@EB01/@EB01.HTM">Employment</a></th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Payroll Employment</td>
<td>6,000</td>
<td>66,000</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>-7,000</td>
<td>-13,000</td>
<td>-5.1%</td>
<td>-4.2%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Average Weekly Hours</td>
<td>34.0</td>
<td>34.3</td>
<td>34.2</td>
<td>34.2</td>
<td>34.4</td>
<td>34.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Average Hourly Earnings</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Personal Income & Spending Up 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> August 2, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020802b.jpg" width="353">
Personal income rose slightly more than expected in June. May&#39;s gain was revised slightly higher. Income is up 5.6% (AR) year-to-date. 
Personal consumption expenditures rose slightly less than expected following benchmark revisions that generally lowered the level of spending. In chained 96 dollars, spending is up 2.9% (AR) year-to-date.
Wage and salary disbursements rose 0.7%, the strongest gain since July 2000. Wages are up 3.3% (AR) YTD. 
Personal spending rose slightly less than expected. Durables spending was notably strong as unit sales of light vehicles rose 5.2%. Spending on nondurables and services rose moderately
Disposable income rose 0.7% (11.7% AR, YTD, following upwardly revised gains. Personal tax payments fell sharply in January and in five of six months this year. 
The PCE price deflator rose 0.1% following an unrevised 0.1% decline in May. Prices were up 2.1% (AR) year to date. Less food and energy the price deflator rose 0.1% following no change in May.

<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/@E7/@E711/@E71102/@E71102.HTM">Disposition of Personal Income</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Personal Income</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>8.0%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Personal Consumption</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Savings Rate</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">PCE Price Deflator</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Surge 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> August 2, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020802c.jpg" width="353">
Unit sales of light vehicles rose 9.8% last month versus June as 0% financing plans spurred buying. Sales were quite a bit higher than expected and were the highest since October.
Sales of domestically built vehicles rose 11.8% m/m as both car and truck sales surged.
Imported vehicle sales rose 1.9% vs. June. Autos were about flat but truck sales were strong.
Imports captured 18.5% of the US light vehicle market in July, the lowest percentage this year.

<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/@ED09/@ED0901/@ED0901.HTM">Light Vehicle Sales (SAAR, Mil.Units)</a></th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>18.10</td>
<td>16.48</td>
<td>9.7%</td>
<td>17.25</td>
<td>17.40</td>
<td>16.95</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Domestic</td>
<td>14.75</td>
<td>13.19</td>
<td>9.2%</td>
<td>14.18</td>
<td>14.58</td>
<td>14.47</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Imported</td>
<td>3.35</td>
<td>3.29</td>
<td>11.9%</td>
<td>3.06</td>
<td>2.82</td>
<td>2.48</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Factory Inventory Decumulation Slowed 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> August 2, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020802d.jpg" width="353">
Manufacturing inventories fell by the least amount since the start of the runoff early last year. May&#39;s decline was unrevised.
Inventory decumulation amongst durable gods industries continued strong and was broad based. Nondurable goods inventories rose 0.4% after sideways movement most of the year. Gains were broad based but strongest for petroleum. 
Shipments plunged 1.0% (-1.5% y/y) following three months of gain.

<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/@ED01016/@ED01016.HTM">Inventories</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Mfg Inventories</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-7.7%</td>
<td>-8.0%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Payrolls rose less than expected last month, but moderate gains in May and June were revised up. Payrolls have fallen 0.1% YTD. The modest rise in July payrolls was accompanied by a sharp drop in the length of the workweek. As a [...]

July Payrolls Weak, Hours 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/020801c.jpg" width="353">
The ISM Composite Index of manufacturing sector activity was much weaker than expected last month, falling to the lowest level since January. Consensus expectations were for a decline to 55.0. 
Each of the component series declined, but orders and production were notably lower.
Inflation pressure rose sharply as the percentage of companies reporting lower prices fell even further. The percentage of companies reporting higher prices rose slightly.
Over the last twenty years there has been a 68% correlation between the ISM Composite Index and the quarterly growth in chained GDP.

<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/@EF02/@EF02.HTM">ISM Manufacturing Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Index</td>
<td>50.5</td>
<td>56.2</td>
<td>43.9</td>
<td>43.9</td>
<td>51.6</td>
<td>54.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid Index</td>
<td>68.3</td>
<td>65.5</td>
<td>39.9</td>
<td>43.0</td>
<td>64.8</td>
<td>54.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Construction Spending Fell Sharply in June 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> August 1, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020801b.jpg" width="353">
The value of construction put in place was weaker than expected in June. A slight gain had been expected. May&#39;s figures were lowered sharply due to weaker activity in the nonresidential sector.
Residential building fell for the third consecutive month. Single family building has been flat of late but multi-family has fallen in four of the last six months. 
Nonresidential building activity fell sharply for the fourth month this year. Nonresidential building activity peaked in March 2001 and has since fallen 24.0%. Industrial and office building ticked higher last month after several months of sharp decline.
Spending by governments fell for the third month this year led by lower building in the industrial and hospital areas.

<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/@E907/@E90701/@E90701.HTM">Construction Put-in-place</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>-2.2%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-3.7%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>8.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Residential</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>11.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonresidential</td>
<td>-3.4%</td>
<td>-4.9%</td>
<td>-20.1%</td>
<td>-3.1%</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Public</td>
<td>-3.1%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>10.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Initial Claims for Jobless Insurance Up Moderately 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> August 1, 2002


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/020801a.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose slightly more than expected in the latest week. The prior week&#39;s level was revised up slightly. 
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance rose 0.1% for the first rise in six weeks, but the prior week&#39;s level was revised down.
The four-week moving average of initial claims rose slightly to 386,000, -2.8% y/y. 
The insured rate of unemployment was unchanged at 2.7%.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">7/27/02</th>
<th scope="col">7/20/02</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
<th scope="col">1999</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>387.0</td>
<td>367.0</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>405.8</td>
<td>299.8</td>
<td>297.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>3,502</td>
<td>17.2%</td>
<td>3,021</td>
<td>2,114</td>
<td>2,186</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The ISM Composite Index of manufacturing sector activity was much weaker than expected last month, falling to the lowest level since January. Consensus expectations were for a decline to 55.0. Each of the component series declined, [...]

ISM Index Down Sharply in July

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

Resilient US economy is pushing up longer-term inflation expectations and interest rates

Positive US economic data surprises leading to upward adjustment of interest rate expectations

Recent aggressive policy easing in China has given a massive boost to equity prices

FOMC expects much more easing now than in June

US is clear world leader in business capital spending on artificial intelligence

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

250314F0.jpg

250314G0.jpg

The National Association of Realtors' Fixed Rate Mortgage Housing Affordability Index (HAI) eased 0.2% (-3.6% y/y) in January to 100.7 after rising 1.5% to 100.9 in December and falling 2.9% in November to 99.4. The level of home affordability has risen 12.0% from its low of 89.9 in October 2023. It remains 43.8% below the high of 179.2 in April 2020.

The slip in affordability in January reflected a 1.6% drop (+5.0% y/y) in the median price of an existing single-family home to $402,000 which was offset by a rise in mortgage rates to 7.04% from 6.80% in December. The price decline was the sixth in the last seven months from the record $432,900 in June. The rise in mortgage rates compared to a September low of 6.26% and a 7.14% high during May. It remained increased from a December 2020 low of 2.73%. These changes raised the principal & interest payment by 0.8% (8.4% y/y) to $2,148 per month. That was well above the most recent low of $984 in February 2020. Monthly mortgage payments averaged a steady 24.8% of income during January. They remained up from a low of 14.0% in April 2020.

The rise in housing costs in January was accompanied by improvement in median family income. It increased 0.7% (4.5% y/y) to a record $103,850 after rising 0.3% in December and 0.4% in November.

Housing affordability was mixed m/m across the country in January. The index rose 0.4% (-5.9% y/y) to 134.2 in the Midwest. It remains the most affordable region of the country. In the South, the index eased 0.6% (-2.5% y/y) to 103.3 and the affordability index in the Northeast fell 1.9% (-8.7% y/y) to 89.9. In the West, where homes are the least affordable, the index weakened 1.8% (-5.5% y/y) to 69.8 in January.

The Housing Affordability Index (HAI) equals 100 when a median-income borrower qualifies for an 80% mortgage on a median-priced existing single-family home. The HAI had exceeded 100 in each month since July 1990 and reached its all-time high of 213.3 in January 2013; since then, it fell below 100 for the first time in June 2022 (98.8).

Data on Housing Affordability can be found in Haver’s **REALTOR** database. Median home sales prices are also available in **USECON**. Higher frequency interest rate data are found in **SURVEYS**, **WEEKLY**, and **DAILY**.

250314H0.jpg

250314I0.jpg

- Home prices ease but mortgage rates rise.
- Median income strengthens.
- Affordability weakens in most of country.

U.S. Housing Affordability Is Little Changed in January

Carol Stone, CBE

250314F2.jpg

250314G2.jpg

Yesterday, March 13, the Federal Reserve published the Financial Accounts for Q4 2024. They show, among numerous other things, that domestic nonfinancial participants in the U.S. economy had borrowings that represented 11.4% of GDP during Q4. This is down moderately from 12.3% in Q3 and produced an amount for the whole year of 2024 of 11.9% of GDP. The quarterly amounts cited here are at seasonally adjusted annual rates.

In Q4, the largest borrowing sector was the federal government, which used $2,602.9 billion, or 8.8% of GDP, up from $2,261 billion in Q3, or 7.7% of GDP.  Households borrowed $624.3 billion or 2.1% of GDP; this amount included $294.3 billion of home mortgages and $133.1 billion of consumer credit.

Nonfinancial business corporations actually paid down debt of $64.1 billion in Q4, or 0.2% of GDP. In Q1 of 2024, businesses had borrowed $698.2 billion and for the whole year, they borrowed $436.6 billion or 1.5% of GDP. State and local governments paid down $46.0 billion in Q4; for the whole year they did use $97.8 billion or 0.3% of GDP.

In addition to domestic borrowers, the foreign sector borrowed $341.3 billion in Q4, or 1.1% of GDP and up from $196.7 billion in Q3.  For all of 2024, foreign participants used $345.5 billion, or 1.2% of GDP.

The Financial Accounts data are in Haver's **FFUNDS** database. The Federal Reserve is the main source, while associated information is compiled in the Integrated Macroeconomic Accounts produced jointly with the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA); those nonfinancial data are carried in Haver's **USNA** database as well as in **FFUNDS**. Note that revisions are common throughout the accounts with every quarterly release.

250314H2.jpg

250314I2.jpg

- Nonfinancial sectors together borrowed 11.4% of GDP in Q4.
- Not surprisingly, the largest borrowing sector was the federal government.
- Households had sizable amounts of home mortgage borrowing, though this was less than in Q3.
- Businesses paid down debt in Q4.

U.S. Economic Sectors Borrowed Moderately in Q4 and for All of 2024

Andrew Cates

**Falling US growth momentum**
The latest Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey reflects a shifting global economic landscape, with the US experiencing a notable loss of momentum. After climbing above 2.0% on the back of a strong economic performance in late 2024, consensus forecasts for US growth in 2025 have now been revised downward for the first time in nearly a year. This reversal reflects weaker-than-expected economic data and emerging challenges tied to the policy shifts of the new administration. The downgrade in US growth projections also coincides with a further downward revision to an already subdued outlook for the UK and the euro area, reinforcing concerns about a sluggish global growth outlook (chart 1).

250313Z1.jpg

**Global inflation expectations**
In the meantime the same survey reveals growing concerns about the inflation outlook in the US and Europe this year, and possibly reflecting the impact of US tariff policies on global price pressures. Japan’s inflation forecast for 2025 has also surged, as rising import costs and shifting trade dynamics have additionally contributed to stronger price pressures. This all stands in contrast to China with inflation expectations for this year falling below 1%, reinforcing concerns about deflation and weak demand (chart 2).

250313Z2.jpg

**Global bond markets**
Recent shifts in 10-year government bond yields reflect changing market expectations. While yields have risen sharply in Germany, China, and Japan, they have fallen in the US. Germany’s increase is tied to expanded defense spending and industrial subsidies, while China’s reflects a shift toward more aggressive fiscal easing, with its deficit target rising to 4% of GDP to counter deflation and weak demand. In contrast, falling US yields signal a reassessment of growth expectations under the new administration. This divergence suggests capital may be flowing toward economies with stronger fiscal stimulus, potentially weakening the dollar, increasing borrowing costs for US businesses, and complicating efforts to revive domestic manufacturing.

250313Z3.jpg

**Overseas holdings of US Securities**
Latest data show that foreign-holdings of US long-term securities have risen steadily over the past decade, with a notable acceleration in the past two years. The most recent data additionally highlights a significant increase in foreign ownership of US corporate equities, reflecting, until recently, investor confidence in US companies.

250313Z4.jpg

**Industrialisation versus de-industrialisation**
Recent US policy shifts—particularly higher tariffs on Chinese imports—aim to address the long-term decline in domestic manufacturing jobs. However, their effectiveness is uncertain, given the growing role of automation and AI in reshaping industrial production. While tariffs may offer short-term relief, they are unlikely to reverse decades of global manufacturing shifts. China’s rise from a low-value agrarian economy to an industrial powerhouse has reshaped trade patterns, while US industrial employment has steadily declined, mirroring trends in other advanced economies. Meanwhile, Vietnam and other emerging markets have absorbed manufacturing capacity, benefiting from shifting supply chains. The real challenge for US policymakers is not just bringing back jobs but ensuring domestic industries stay competitive amid changing cost structures and technological advancements.

250313Z5.jpg

**Global competitiveness**
Historically, China's low unit labour costs provided it with a significant advantage, fuelling its manufacturing boom and accelerating the offshoring of US industrial jobs. However, as China's wages have risen due to economic development and increased productivity, and as US unit labour costs have remained relatively stable, the gap has narrowed considerably. Yet, still high labour costs in the US – coupled with rising trade barriers and rising input costs - still pose a challenge to the effectiveness of US policies, as firms may still find it difficult to maintain competitiveness without significant productivity gains. Indeed, as suggested above, there is a real risk that firms may instead accelerate their shift toward automation or relocate production to other low-cost regions (e.g. Vietnam), undermining the broader economic rationale for these interventions. The erosion of economic goodwill, combined with rising costs and financial market instability, additionally suggest that while the strategic objectives of US policy may be clear, the long-term implications remain highly uncertain.

250313Z6.jpg

The recent financial market volatility, marked by sharp swings in bond yields and equity market repricing, reflects growing uncertainty about the trajectory of the US economy amid a rapidly shifting policy environment. The US administration’s latest tariff measures, and their conflicting objectives, have amplified uncertainty, stifled risk appetite and further ignited inflation concerns (charts 1 and 2). Markets are grappling with the inflationary impact of rising import costs, the potential supply chain disruptions caused by abrupt shifts in trade policy, and the broader implications of protectionism on corporate investment. Meanwhile, recent policy announcements from Germany and China, coupled with firming inflationary pressures in Japan, have pushed global (ex-US) bond yields sharply higher, potentially amplifying global financial instability (charts 3 and 4). These shifts could profoundly reshape global trade and investment, not just through economic fundamentals but also through a growing erosion of goodwill toward the United States. As policy unpredictability forces companies and governments to hedge against potential disruptions, trust in the stability of US economic leadership is weakening. At the same time, concerns are mounting over the effectiveness of US policy choices, particularly in relation to one of its core ambitions—reshoring manufacturing jobs (charts 5 and 6). The question remains whether these interventions will achieve their intended goals or simply accelerate automation and supply chain realignment elsewhere.

<iframe style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/3jhzSO4G2WNbw3KYrYFowF?utm_source=generator" width="100%" height="152" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" loading="lazy"></iframe>

<iframe allow="autoplay *; encrypted-media *; fullscreen *; clipboard-write" frameborder="0" height="175" style="width:100%;max-width:660px;overflow:hidden;border-radius:10px;" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/from-blue-to-red/id1706849345?i=1000699027560"></iframe>

Charts of the Week: From Blue to Red

250313J4.jpg

250313K4.jpg

The Producer Price Index for final demand held steady (+3.2% y/y) during February after increasing 0.6% in January, revised from 0.4% and rising an unrevised 0.5% in December according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The February reading compared to a 0.2% rise expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Producer prices excluding food, energy & trade services rose 0.2% (3.3% y/y) last month after an unrevised 0.3% January increase, and an unrevised 0.4% gain in December. The PPI excluding food & energy eased 0.1% (+3.4% y/y) after rising 0.5% in January, revised from 0.3%. A 0.3% increase had been expected.

Energy prices declined 1.2% (-3.7% y/y) during February, after rising 1.8% in January. Gasoline costs fell 4.7% (-8.2% y/y) after rising 0.3% while home heating oil prices declined 9.8% (-12.2% y/y) after a 6.5% strengthening. Electric power prices rose 0.5% (0.9% y/y) in February following a 0.4% January decline and natural gas costs strengthened 1.3% (6.7% y/y) following a 3.8% surge. Diesel fuel prices declined 3.9% (-18.5% y/y) after a 10.5% jump.

Final demand food prices rose 1.7% (5.9% y/y) in February, following a 1.0% January gain. Egg prices jumped 28.1% (136.6% y/y) following a 44.0% increase. Prices for fresh and dry vegetables rose 6.0% (-16.3% y/y) after falling 22.3% in January. Beef & veal prices declined 1.8% (+9.5% y/y) after a 5.7% rise while dairy product prices rose 0.1% (5.7% y/y) after a 0.4% increase.

Final demand goods prices excluding food & energy rose 0.4% (2.1% y/y) in February following a 0.2% rise. Core finished consumer goods prices rose 0.4% (2.1% y/y) after a decline of 0.2% in January. Core nondurable goods prices strengthened 0.6% (2.3% y/y) last month after falling 0.4% in January. Durable consumer goods prices improved 0.2% (1.6% y/y), after edging 0.1% higher in January. Capital equipment prices rose 0.2% (2.5% y/y) last month following a 0.3% gain. Core government-purchased goods prices rose 0.2% (2.4% y/y) in January, after a 0.6% January increase.

Final demand services prices declined 0.2% (+3.9% y/y) last month after rising 0.6% in January. Trade services prices fell 1.0% (+4.0% y/y) last month following a 1.2% gain. Trade of finished goods prices declined 1.1% (3.6% y/y) and reversed the January rise. Prices for final demand transportation and warehousing services held steady (+2.6% y/y) in February, after strengthening 0.9% in January. Services prices less these costs rose 0.2% (4.0% y/y) last month, after a rise of 0.3% in January.

Construction costs eased 0.1% (+1.7% y/y) in February, after increasing 0.4% during January.

Prices for intermediate demand of processed goods rose 0.5% (0.3% y/y) following a 1.0% jump. Processed energy goods prices rose 0.5% last month after increasing 3.6% in January, while food prices rose 2.0% following a 0.7% January gain.

The PPI data are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. Further detail is contained in **PPI** and **PPIR**. The expectations figures are available in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250313L4.jpg

250313M4.jpg

- Energy prices weaken and food prices firm.
- Price gains in core goods pick up.
- Services prices decline.

U.S. PPI Is Unchanged in February; Rise in Core Index Moderates

250313A5.jpg

250313B5.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance were 220,000 seasonally adjusted in the week ended March 8, just slightly less than the 222,000 the week before; that earlier amount was revised marginally from 221,000 reported before. In the latest week, the Action Economics Forecast Survey had expected 230,000. In this March 8 week, the four-week moving average was 226,000.

The total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries was 1.87 million in the week ended March 1, down from 1.897 million in the week ended February 22. The four-week moving average was 1.872 million through the March 1st week, up from 1.866 million the week before.

The insured unemployment rate, that is, the total number of beneficiaries as a percent of covered employment, remained at 1.2%, which has held since March 2023.

Economic conditions vary widely across states and territories. In the week ended February 22, the highest rates were in Rhode Island (3.37%), New Jersey (2.90%), Massachusetts (2.58%), Minnesota (2.57%) and California (2.42%). The lowest rates were in Florida (0.36%), Alabama (0.44%), Virginia (0.46%), Tennessee and North Carolina (both 0.56%) and Mississippi (0.58%). Rates in other notable states include New York (2.08%), Pennsylvania (2.03%) and Texas (1.12%). These state rates are not seasonally adjusted.

Data on weekly unemployment claims are from the Department of Labor itself, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They begin in 1967 and are contained in Haver’s **WEEKLY** database and summarized monthly in **USECON**. Data for individual states are in **REGIONW** back to December 1986. The expectations figure is from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250313C5.jpg

250313D5.jpg

- Initial claims were less than forecast.
- Total recipients of unemployment insurance also fell.
- Insured unemployment rate still 1.2%.

Economy in Brief: August 2002

Jump to:

ISM Nonmanufacturing Index Fell Again

July Payrolls Weak, Hours Plunge

ISM Index Down Sharply in July