Tom Moeller

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8; }
</style>
</head>
<body>
 


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091221e.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">The
U.S. economy seems to be regaining forward momentum. That is the
indication from the Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) from
the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The index improved during November
to a reading of -0.32. That gained back the declines during the prior
three months and pulled the index level to its highest since November
2007, up from the series' low of -4.13 reached this past January. Since
1970 there has been a 74% correlation between the level of the index
and the q/q change in real GDP but during the last ten years that
correlation has risen to 80%.


 The three-month moving average
which smoothes out some of the volatility of the index also improved to
near its highest level since February of 2008.

<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091221f.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">An index
level at or below -0.70 typically has indicated negative U.S. economic
growth. A zero value of the CFNAI indicates that the economy is
expanding at its historical trend rate of growth of roughly 3%. The
complete CFNAI report is available <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/cfnai/2009/cfnai_december2009.pdf">here</a>.·
The Chicago Fed indicated that 36 of the series' individual indicators
made positive contributions to the November index while 49 made
negative contributions. The CFNAI is a weighted average of 85
indicators of economic activity. The indicators reflect activity in the
following categories: production &amp; income, the labor market,
personal consumption &amp; housing, manufacturing &amp; trade
sales, and inventories &amp; orders. 
In a separate survey, the
Chicago Fed indicated that its Midwest manufacturing index improved
modestly during October to its highest level since the June low.
Indicators for the auto, steel, machinery and resource sectors each
improved. The Chicago Federal Reserve figures are available in Haver's SURVEYS
database.&nbsp;&nbsp;
<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/SURVEYS/@S5/@S503/@S503.HTM" style="color: black;">Chicago Fed</a></th>
<th scope="col">November</th>
<th scope="col">October</th>
<th scope="col">September</th>
<th scope="col">November '08</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">CFNAI</td>
<td>-0.32</td>
<td>-1.02</td>
<td>-0.95</td>
<td>-2.99</td>
<td>-1.77</td>
<td>-0.35</td>
<td>0.05</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; 3-Month Moving
Average</td>
<td>-0.77</td>
<td>-0.87</td>
<td>-0.61</td>
<td>-2.63</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Personal Consumption &amp; Housing&nbsp;</td>
<td>-0.48</td>
<td>-0.48</td>
<td>-0.64</td>
<td>-0.43</td>
<td>-0.33</td>
<td>-0.10</td>
<td>0.06</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Employment Unemployment &amp; Hours</td>
<td>-0.12</td>
<td>-0.42</td>
<td>-0.53</td>
<td>-1.06</td>
<td>-0.62</td>
<td>-0.15</td>
<td>0.01</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Production &amp; Income</td>
<td>0.35</td>
<td>-0.09</td>
<td>0.19</td>
<td>-0.95</td>
<td>-0.55</td>
<td>-0.05</td>
<td>-0.01</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Sales, Inventories &amp; Orders</td>
<td>-0.07</td>
<td>-0.02</td>
<td>0.03</td>
<td>-0.53</td>
<td>-0.24</td>
<td>-0.06</td>
<td>-0.01</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

</body></html>

The U.S. economy seems to be regaining forward momentum. That is the indication from the Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The index improved during November to a reading of -0.32. [...]

Chicago Fed Index Recovered Recent Declines To Best In Two Years

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091221a.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Recent signs of stability in home sales and construction hold
promise that deflation in home prices is abating. Of course, that
depends on whether the only reason for pricing improvement is due to
the increased affordability of housing created by past price declines.
Positive growth in jobs and income would support a more lasting bottom
in pricing power ... then growth in housing sector activity. States'
home price data in the table below is arranged by highest-to-lowest y/y
change during all of last year. The difference between the state with
the best performance (Texas) and the worst performance (Nevada) is a
huge twenty percentage points. Versus 2007, the rate of price change
slowed throughout the country, but nowhere was it more pronounced than
in California; to a 17.2% rate of decline from negative 4.7%.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091221b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Through the third quarter of this year, home price declines
occurred in all but a few states. For the country as a whole home
prices fell another 4.1% y/y during 3Q after the 2.7% decline during
2008. So far this year, however, the rate of price decline has
stabilized. The good news was that the rate of price deflation both in
Florida and California slowed versus 2008. In fact, the rate of home
price decline halved in California. Alabama, North Carolina and Indiana
are three states where earlier stability in home prices gave way to
deflation. Past stability was, however, tenuous as price appreciation
already had slowed appreciably. In Texas, Nebraska and Louisiana home
price gains all but disappeared.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091221c.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Where home prices go from here clearly is a hard call. And as
individual states' recent performance indicates, much of the story may
be local. Is there a heavy concentration of certain industries in the
state such as finance or defense, or were a state's home prices
inordinately influenced by speculative forces. Home Prices: A
Case for Cautious Optimism from the Federal Reserve Bank of
St. Louis is available <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/09/ES0942.pdf">here</a>.
The latest report from the Federal Housing Finance Agency can
be found <a href="http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/15235/3q09HPI.pdf">here</a>.
The states' home price figures can be found in Haver's REGIONAL
database.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Median
Price of Single-family Homes&nbsp; (y/y % Chg.)</th>
<th scope="col">3Q '09</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005 </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Texas</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>5.7</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>4.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Alabama&nbsp;</td>
<td>-1.1</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>5.1</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>7.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; North Carolina</td>
<td>-2.1</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>6.0</td>
<td>7.7</td>
<td>6.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Tennessee</td>
<td>-1.1</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>5.2</td>
<td>7.4</td>
<td>6.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Louisiana</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>11.2</td>
<td>7.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Colorado</td>
<td>-1.7</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>5.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Indiana</td>
<td>-1.3</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>3.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Arkansas</td>
<td>-0.8</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>7.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nebraska</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>4.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Missouri</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>6.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wisconsin</td>
<td>-1.9</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>7.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Maine</td>
<td>-3.2</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>11.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Washington</td>
<td>-8.3</td>
<td>-1.3</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>15.7</td>
<td>15.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; New York</td>
<td>-4.0</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>7.3</td>
<td>13.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">U.S. Total</td>
<td>-4.1</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>7.3</td>
<td>11.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Connecticut</td>
<td>-4.8</td>
<td>-3.0</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>12.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Virginia</td>
<td>-4.2</td>
<td>-3.2</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>10.8</td>
<td>19.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Hawaii</td>
<td>-8.2</td>
<td>-3.8</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>14.4</td>
<td>24.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Massachusetts</td>
<td>-3.4</td>
<td>-3.9</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>9.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; New Jersey</td>
<td>-6.0</td>
<td>-4.1</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>9.1</td>
<td>15.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; District of Columbia</td>
<td>-3.9</td>
<td>-4.8</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>12.1</td>
<td>23.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Michigan</td>
<td>-5.9</td>
<td>-5.3</td>
<td>-3.1</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>3.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Maryland</td>
<td>-7.4</td>
<td>-5.8</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>13.2</td>
<td>21.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rhode Island</td>
<td>-6.8</td>
<td>-6.6</td>
<td>-2.0</td>
<td>4.5</td>
<td>13.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Arizona</td>
<td>-13.6</td>
<td>-11.9</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>19.0</td>
<td>29.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Florida</td>
<td>-12.4</td>
<td>-14.6</td>
<td>-1.5</td>
<td>16.5</td>
<td>25.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; California</td>
<td>-8.4</td>
<td>-17.2</td>
<td>-4.7</td>
<td>10.2</td>
<td>22.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nevada</td>
<td>-16.7</td>
<td>-17.8</td>
<td>-3.5</td>
<td>9.0</td>
<td>23.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Recent signs of stability in home sales and construction hold promise that deflation in home prices is abating. Of course, that depends on whether the only reason for pricing improvement is due to the increased affordability of [...]

United States' Home Price Performance All Over The Map

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091221a.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Recent signs of stability in home sales and construction hold
promise that deflation in home prices is abating. Of course, that
depends on whether the only reason for pricing improvement is due to
the increased affordability of housing created by past price declines.
Positive growth in jobs and income would support a more lasting bottom
in pricing power ... then growth in housing sector activity. States'
home price data in the table below is arranged by highest-to-lowest y/y
change during all of last year. The difference between the state with
the best performance (Texas) and the worst performance (Nevada) is a
huge twenty percentage points. Versus 2007, the rate of price change
slowed throughout the country, but nowhere was it more pronounced than
in California; to a 17.2% rate of decline from negative 4.7%.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091221b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Through the third quarter of this year, home price declines
occurred in all but a few states. For the country as a whole home
prices fell another 4.1% y/y during 3Q after the 2.7% decline during
2008. So far this year, however, the rate of price decline has
stabilized. The good news was that the rate of price deflation both in
Florida and California slowed versus 2008. In fact, the rate of home
price decline halved in California. Alabama, North Carolina and Indiana
are three states where earlier stability in home prices gave way to
deflation. Past stability was, however, tenuous as price appreciation
already had slowed appreciably. In Texas, Nebraska and Louisiana home
price gains all but disappeared.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091221c.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Where home prices go from here clearly is a hard call. And as
individual states' recent performance indicates, much of the story may
be local. Is there a heavy concentration of certain industries in the
state such as finance or defense, or were a state's home prices
inordinately influenced by speculative forces. Home Prices: A
Case for Cautious Optimism from the Federal Reserve Bank of
St. Louis is available <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/09/ES0942.pdf">here</a>.
The latest report from the Federal Housing Finance Agency can
be found <a href="http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/15235/3q09HPI.pdf">here</a>.
The states' home price figures can be found in Haver's REGIONAL
database.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Median
Price of Single-family Homes&nbsp; (y/y % Chg.)</th>
<th scope="col">3Q '09</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005 </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Texas</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>5.7</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>4.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Alabama&nbsp;</td>
<td>-1.1</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>5.1</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>7.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; North Carolina</td>
<td>-2.1</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>6.0</td>
<td>7.7</td>
<td>6.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Tennessee</td>
<td>-1.1</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>5.2</td>
<td>7.4</td>
<td>6.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Louisiana</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>11.2</td>
<td>7.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Colorado</td>
<td>-1.7</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>5.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Indiana</td>
<td>-1.3</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>3.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Arkansas</td>
<td>-0.8</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>7.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nebraska</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>4.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Missouri</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>6.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wisconsin</td>
<td>-1.9</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>7.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Maine</td>
<td>-3.2</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>11.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Washington</td>
<td>-8.3</td>
<td>-1.3</td>
<td>7.5</td>
<td>15.7</td>
<td>15.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; New York</td>
<td>-4.0</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>7.3</td>
<td>13.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">U.S. Total</td>
<td>-4.1</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>7.3</td>
<td>11.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Connecticut</td>
<td>-4.8</td>
<td>-3.0</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>12.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Virginia</td>
<td>-4.2</td>
<td>-3.2</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>10.8</td>
<td>19.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Hawaii</td>
<td>-8.2</td>
<td>-3.8</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>14.4</td>
<td>24.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Massachusetts</td>
<td>-3.4</td>
<td>-3.9</td>
<td>-2.7</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>9.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; New Jersey</td>
<td>-6.0</td>
<td>-4.1</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>9.1</td>
<td>15.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; District of Columbia</td>
<td>-3.9</td>
<td>-4.8</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>12.1</td>
<td>23.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Michigan</td>
<td>-5.9</td>
<td>-5.3</td>
<td>-3.1</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>3.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Maryland</td>
<td>-7.4</td>
<td>-5.8</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>13.2</td>
<td>21.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rhode Island</td>
<td>-6.8</td>
<td>-6.6</td>
<td>-2.0</td>
<td>4.5</td>
<td>13.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Arizona</td>
<td>-13.6</td>
<td>-11.9</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>19.0</td>
<td>29.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Florida</td>
<td>-12.4</td>
<td>-14.6</td>
<td>-1.5</td>
<td>16.5</td>
<td>25.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; California</td>
<td>-8.4</td>
<td>-17.2</td>
<td>-4.7</td>
<td>10.2</td>
<td>22.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nevada</td>
<td>-16.7</td>
<td>-17.8</td>
<td>-3.5</td>
<td>9.0</td>
<td>23.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
 Chicago Fed Index Recovered
Recent Declines To Best In Two Years 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> December 21, 2009

<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091221e.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">The
U.S. economy seems to be regaining forward momentum. That is the
indication from the Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) from
the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The index improved during November
to a reading of -0.32. That gained back the declines during the prior
three months and pulled the index level to its highest since November
2007, up from the series' low of -4.13 reached this past January. Since
1970 there has been a 74% correlation between the level of the index
and the q/q change in real GDP but during the last ten years that
correlation has risen to 80%.


 The three-month moving average
which smoothes out some of the volatility of the index also improved to
near its highest level since February of 2008.

<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091221f.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">An index
level at or below -0.70 typically has indicated negative U.S. economic
growth. A zero value of the CFNAI indicates that the economy is
expanding at its historical trend rate of growth of roughly 3%. The
complete CFNAI report is available <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/cfnai/2009/cfnai_december2009.pdf">here</a>.·
The Chicago Fed indicated that 36 of the series' individual indicators
made positive contributions to the November index while 49 made
negative contributions. The CFNAI is a weighted average of 85
indicators of economic activity. The indicators reflect activity in the
following categories: production &amp; income, the labor market,
personal consumption &amp; housing, manufacturing &amp; trade
sales, and inventories &amp; orders. 
In a separate survey, the
Chicago Fed indicated that its Midwest manufacturing index improved
modestly during October to its highest level since the June low.
Indicators for the auto, steel, machinery and resource sectors each
improved. The Chicago Federal Reserve figures are available in Haver's SURVEYS
database.&nbsp;&nbsp;
<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/SURVEYS/@S5/@S503/@S503.HTM" style="color: black;">Chicago Fed</a></th>
<th scope="col">November</th>
<th scope="col">October</th>
<th scope="col">September</th>
<th scope="col">November '08</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">CFNAI</td>
<td>-0.32</td>
<td>-1.02</td>
<td>-0.95</td>
<td>-2.99</td>
<td>-1.77</td>
<td>-0.35</td>
<td>0.05</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; 3-Month Moving
Average</td>
<td>-0.77</td>
<td>-0.87</td>
<td>-0.61</td>
<td>-2.63</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Personal Consumption &amp; Housing&nbsp;</td>
<td>-0.48</td>
<td>-0.48</td>
<td>-0.64</td>
<td>-0.43</td>
<td>-0.33</td>
<td>-0.10</td>
<td>0.06</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Employment Unemployment &amp; Hours</td>
<td>-0.12</td>
<td>-0.42</td>
<td>-0.53</td>
<td>-1.06</td>
<td>-0.62</td>
<td>-0.15</td>
<td>0.01</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Production &amp; Income</td>
<td>0.35</td>
<td>-0.09</td>
<td>0.19</td>
<td>-0.95</td>
<td>-0.55</td>
<td>-0.05</td>
<td>-0.01</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Sales, Inventories &amp; Orders</td>
<td>-0.07</td>
<td>-0.02</td>
<td>0.03</td>
<td>-0.53</td>
<td>-0.24</td>
<td>-0.06</td>
<td>-0.01</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Japanese Trade Balance Improves 
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise
Curley</a> December 21, 2009

<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091221g.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">Japanese
balance of trade continues to improve in spite of the
high and rising yen. In November the seasonally adjusted trade balance
was 492.4 billion yen, up from the low point reached in January, 2009
when the balance was a negative 478 billion yen and it is now at the
highest level since April 2008 when the balance was 660 billion yen.
Exports reached a peak of 7,591.4 billion yen in January, 2009
and declined to 3,983.0 in February, 2009. Since then, they have risen
to 4,998.0 billion yen. Imports reached a peak in August, 2008 at 7,
209.l and declined to 4.030.6 billion yen in June, 2009. Imports have
since recovered to 4,506.1 billion yen. The trends of exports, imports
and trade balance are shown in the first chart.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091221h.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Data on trade by area are not seasonally adjusted. As a
result, trends in these data are best shown by the year over year
changes. The year to year changes for Japan's trade with Asia, Western
Europe and the United States are shown in the second chart. The year to
year change in the trade balance with Asia is the most striking. It has
been positive and increasing since September of the year. The year to
year change in the trade balance with Western Europe is still negative,
but the magnitude of the difference, -44.5 billion yen, is greatly
lower than the -246.4 billion yen recorded in August. 2009. The year to
year change in the trade balance with the United States has also
improved and, for the first time in over two years, was positive.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">
JAPAN TRADE IN GOODS</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 09</th>
<th scope="col">Oct 09</th>
<th scope="col">Nov&nbsp; 08</th>
<th scope="col">M/M CHG</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y CHG </th>
<th scope="col">2008&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2007 </th>
<th scope="col"> 2006 </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Trade Balance (SA bil
yen)</td>
<td>492.4</td>
<td>460.8</td>
<td>368.6</td>
<td>31.6</td>
<td>861.0</td>
<td>2244.5</td>
<td>10854.4</td>
<td>7762.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Exports</td>
<td>4998.9</td>
<td>4765.3</td>
<td>5293.6</td>
<td>233.2</td>
<td>-295.1</td>
<td>80916.2</td>
<td>83856.4</td>
<td>75144.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Imports</td>
<td>4506.1</td>
<td>4304.6</td>
<td>5662.2</td>
<td>201.6</td>
<td>-1156.1</td>
<td>78671.7</td>
<td>73002.0</td>
<td>67382.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Year to Year Change
(bil yen)</td>
<td>Nov 09</td>
<td>Oct 09</td>
<td>Sep 09</td>
<td>Aug 09</td>
<td>Jul 09 </td>
<td>Jun 09&nbsp;</td>
<td>May 09 </td>
<td> Apr 09 </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Trade Balance with Asia</td>
<td>460.8</td>
<td>372.1</td>
<td>53.1</td>
<td>-303.0</td>
<td>-224.9</td>
<td>-221.1</td>
<td>-298.2</td>
<td>-388.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Trade Balance with Western
Europe</td>
<td>-44.5</td>
<td>-119.6</td>
<td>-194.8</td>
<td>-246.4</td>
<td>-237.3</td>
<td>-182.8</td>
<td>-227.4</td>
<td>-241.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Trade Balance with U.S.A</td>
<td>59.7</td>
<td>-132.4</td>
<td>-155.2</td>
<td>-86.5</td>
<td>-232.8</td>
<td>-129.2</td>
<td>-234.7</td>
<td>-398.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

United States' Home PricePerformance All Over The Map

Robert Brusca

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091218a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Consumer Confidence in the UK according to GFK has dropped
again in December marking a two-month backtrack in the index. The
current household financial situation is in the bottom 9 percentile of
its range but the major purchase index is in the 71st percentile of its
two year range and 44th percentile of its broader range. 
 

Over the past 12 months the percentile ratings were all below
the 50th percentile and the broad ranges are lower, at or near in the
bottom 25th percentile of their respective ranges. 
 

The outlook components deteriorated across the board in
December except that savings improved and the CPI gauge rose. However,
upper income category survey respondents registered an improved reading
in December as the lower income respondents index fell by a sharp five
points. 
 

Although the GFK index has risen strongly from its very low
recession depths, the new drop is significant and encompasses two
months of backtracking, not just one. It is not the kind of news that
we have been looking for but it fits with the sporadic and conflicted
reports we continue to get out of the UK economy whose readings seem to
run more hot and cold and with more erratic behavior than anywhere
else. Perhaps that is not surprising since the financial crisis has
been severe the UK which was more dependent on its financial sector
than any other country or region. 


GFK Consumer Survey
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="grey4">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>% of 2Yr</td>
<td>% of 10Yr</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Dec-09</td>
<td>Nov-09</td>
<td>Oct-09</td>
<td>Sep-09</td>
<td>Range</td>
<td>Range</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-13</td>
<td>-16</td>
<td>64.5%</td>
<td>50.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td colspan="7">Current</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Household Fin Sit</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Major Purchases</td>
<td>-16</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>-15</td>
<td>71.1%</td>
<td>44.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td colspan="7">Last 12 Months</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Household Fin Sit</td>
<td>-14</td>
<td>-14</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>-13</td>
<td>27.3%</td>
<td>25.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">General Econ Sit</td>
<td>-61</td>
<td>-59</td>
<td>-53</td>
<td>-63</td>
<td>40.4%</td>
<td>30.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">CPI</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>24.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Savings</td>
<td>-8</td>
<td>-10</td>
<td>-6</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>27.0%</td>
<td>25.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td colspan="7">&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td colspan="7">Next 12-Months</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Household Fin Sit</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>67.7%</td>
<td>65.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">General Econ Sit</td>
<td>-6</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>82.1%</td>
<td>82.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>34.0%</td>
<td>49.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Major Purchases</td>
<td>-30</td>
<td>-28</td>
<td>-27</td>
<td>-28</td>
<td>45.5%</td>
<td>40.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Savings</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>30.4%</td>
<td>26.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">CPI</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>39.2%</td>
<td>39.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td colspan="7">&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td colspan="7">By Income</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Lower</td>
<td>-26</td>
<td>-21</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>61.3%</td>
<td>44.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Upper</td>
<td>-7</td>
<td>-8</td>
<td>-8</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>86.2%</td>
<td>65.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Consumer Confidence in the UK according to GFK has dropped again in December marking a two-month backtrack in the index. The current household financial situation is in the bottom 9 percentile of its range but the major purchase index [...]

UK Consumer Confidence Continues Backtrack

<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/091218a.jpg" width="353">
Consumer Confidence in the UK according to GFK has dropped again in December marking a two-month backtrack in the index. The current household financial situation is in the bottom 9 percentile of its range but the major purchase index is in the 71st percentile of its two year range and 44th percentile of its broader range. 
Over the past 12 months the percentile ratings were all below the 50th percentile and the broad ranges are lower, at or near in the bottom 25th percentile of their respective ranges. 
The outlook components deteriorated across the board in December except that savings improved and the CPI gauge rose. However, upper income category survey respondents registered an improved reading in December as the lower income respondents index fell by a sharp five points. 
Although the GFK index has risen strongly from its very low recession depths, the new drop is significant and encompasses two months of backtracking, not just one. It is not the kind of news that we have been looking for but it fits with the sporadic and conflicted reports we continue to get out of the UK economy whose readings seem to run more hot and cold and with more erratic behavior than anywhere else. Perhaps that is not surprising since the financial crisis has been severe the UK which was more dependent on its financial sector than any other country or region. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
GFK Consumer Survey
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="grey4">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>% of 2Yr</td>
<td>% of 10Yr</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Dec-09</td>
<td>Nov-09</td>
<td>Oct-09</td>
<td>Sep-09</td>
<td>Range</td>
<td>Range</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-13</td>
<td>-16</td>
<td>64.5%</td>
<td>50.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td colspan="7">Current</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Household Fin Sit</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Major Purchases</td>
<td>-16</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>-15</td>
<td>71.1%</td>
<td>44.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td colspan="7">Last 12 Months</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Household Fin Sit</td>
<td>-14</td>
<td>-14</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>-13</td>
<td>27.3%</td>
<td>25.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">General Econ Sit</td>
<td>-61</td>
<td>-59</td>
<td>-53</td>
<td>-63</td>
<td>40.4%</td>
<td>30.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">CPI</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>24.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Savings</td>
<td>-8</td>
<td>-10</td>
<td>-6</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>27.0%</td>
<td>25.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td colspan="7">&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td colspan="7">Next 12-Months</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Household Fin Sit</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>67.7%</td>
<td>65.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">General Econ Sit</td>
<td>-6</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>82.1%</td>
<td>82.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>34.0%</td>
<td>49.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Major Purchases</td>
<td>-30</td>
<td>-28</td>
<td>-27</td>
<td>-28</td>
<td>45.5%</td>
<td>40.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Savings</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>30.4%</td>
<td>26.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">CPI</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>39.2%</td>
<td>39.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td colspan="7">&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td colspan="7">By Income</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Lower</td>
<td>-26</td>
<td>-21</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>61.3%</td>
<td>44.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Upper</td>
<td>-7</td>
<td>-8</td>
<td>-8</td>
<td>-12</td>
<td>86.2%</td>
<td>65.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091217d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
UK retail sales volumes fell by 0.3% in November after having
rise in October. Sales volumes have risen twice in the last
three-months and seven times in the last 12-months. 
 

The three-month rate of growth has dipped below the six-month
rate of growth but still exceeds the 12-month growth pace. Clothing and
footwear sales, however, are clearly losing momentum having dropped in
the last three months. Retail ex-auto sales are off from their six
month pace but nearly even with their 12-month pace. 
 

In the new quarter, Sales are growing at a pace of 3% to 3.5%.
That should help to underpin Q4 GDP growth. 
 

In a separate report, the CBI survey of the distributive
trades produced diffusion results saying that November sales were flat
with those in October. That of course is more ambitious that the sales
count from National Statistics (above). The outlook in the CBI
framework was negative, however. 
 

A poll of UK inflation expectations found that expectations
were stuck at 2.4% for the third consecutive quarter. While this is
above the BOE ceiling pace for inflation (of 2%) the Bank has admitted
that there would be some temporary overshoot to which it will not
respond. It is heartening that as inflation has risen in the UK,
inflation expectations have not. BOE credibility seems to be well
intact despite the damage done in the financial crisis. 


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr><th scope="col" colspan="8"> UK Real and Nominal Retail Sales</th>
<th>Quarter</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">Nominal</td>
<td>Nov-09</td>
<td>Oct-09</td>
<td>Sep-09</td>
<td>3-MO</td>
<td>6-MO</td>
<td>12-MO</td>
<td>YrAGo</td>
<td>2-date</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Retail Total</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Food Bev &amp;
Tobacco</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Clothing footwear</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">Real</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">Retial Ex auto</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

UK retail sales volumes fell by 0.3% in November after having rise in October. Sales volumes have risen twice in the last three-months and seven times in the last 12-months. The three-month rate of growth has dipped below the six- [...]

UK Retail Sales Take A Sett Back In November But Cling To Trend Rise

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8; }
</style>
</head>
<body>
 


<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091217g.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">The
Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank indicated that its index of regional
factory sector activity rose this month to its highest level since
early-2005. At 20.5, the index was unexpectedly strong and positive for
the fifth consecutive month. The latest level compared to figures near
-40.0 this past fall and winter.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091217h.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">During the
last ten years there has
been a 77% correlation between the level of the Philadelphia Fed
Business Conditions Index and the three-month growth in factory sector
industrial production. There has been a 70% correlation with q/q growth
in real GDP. The latest survey from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve
Bank can be found <a href="http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/regional-economy/business-outlook-survey/2009/bos1209.pdf">here.</a>·
Amongst the components, the employment index was notably strong as it
rose to well above break-even and to the highest level since late-2007.
During the last ten years there has been a 91% correlation between the
index level and the three-month change in manufacturing sector
payrolls. Remaining strong were shipments, the workweek, unfilled
orders and the delivery times components. The inventory component also
improved significantly from its March low.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091217i.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">The prices paid index rose
sharply to its highest level since August of last year and compares to
negative readings this past winter and spring. During the last ten
years there has been a 71% correlation between the prices paid index
and the three-month growth in the intermediate goods PPI. There has
been an 82% correlation with the change in core intermediate goods
prices.
Expected business conditions in six months deteriorated for
the sixth straight month. The December index fell to a still-positive
reading of 24.4&nbsp; but that was well-off the recent high. Many
of the index components, especially orders and shipments, were down
sharply.· The figures from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve can be
found in Haver's SURVEYS database.&nbsp;
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Philadelphia
Fed (%)</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">November</th>
<th scope="col">October</th>
<th scope="col">December '08</th>
<th scope="col">2009</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">General Activity Index</td>
<td>20.4</td>
<td>16.7</td>
<td>11.5</td>
<td>-35.1</td>
<td>-7.5</td>
<td>-21.3</td>
<td>5.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; New Orders</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>14.8</td>
<td>6.2</td>
<td>-29.3</td>
<td>-9.6</td>
<td>-14.7</td>
<td>6.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Number of Employees</td>
<td>6.3</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>-6.8</td>
<td>-23.8</td>
<td>-23.7</td>
<td>-8.7</td>
<td>6.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid Index</td>
<td>33.8</td>
<td>14.9</td>
<td>21.3</td>
<td>&nbsp;-26.6</td>
<td>-4.0</td>
<td>36.4</td>
<td>26.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

</body></html>

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank indicated that its index of regional factory sector activity rose this month to its highest level since early-2005. At 20.5, the index was unexpectedly strong and positive for the fifth [...]

Philadelphia Fed Index Gains With Strength in Employment

<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/091217e.jpg" width="353">
The Conference Board&#39;s Index of Leading Economic Indicators continued its uptrend last month giving a strong signal that the recent recession has ended. The 0.9% rise during November was the eighth consecutive monthly increase. Moreover, the 10.2% (centered) rate of increase during the last six months was nearly the strongest since early-1983. The leading index is based on actual reports for eight economic data series. The Conference Board initially estimates two series, consumer and capital goods orders.
The breadth of increase amongst the component series sagged again last month. Sixty-five percent of the components rose during November versus last month&#39;s reading of 70% that increased. During the most recent six months, however, 80% of the series rose. Prominent in last month&#39;s increase was a longer workweek, fewer jobless insurance claims, more building permits, and the steeper interest rate yield curve. These gains were offset by easier vendor performance, lower consumer expectations and a downtick in capital goods orders.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/091217f.jpg" width="353">
Continuing to suggest that the rate of decline in the economy is slowing were the coincident indicators which rose for the first month in the last three. The 0.2% gain followed an unrevised no-change during October. During the last six months the 1.4% rate of decline in the coincident series compares with a shortfall of 8.0% at its worst in January. Moderation of earlier declines has been due to higher industrial production, higher real personal income and higher business sales as well as easier declines in payroll employment.
In a continued sign that excesses in the U.S. economy are falling, the lagging index has been falling since January. Leading the decline has been lower commercial &amp; industrial loans outstanding as well as slower growth in labor costs and less consumer credit. The ratio of coincident-to-lagging indicators (another leading indicator) also continued higher for the eighth straight month to the highest level since November.
The Conference Board figures are available in Haver&#39;s BCI database. Visit the Conference Board&#39;s <a href="http://www.conference-board.org">site</a> for coverage of leading indicator series from around the world.

<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/BCI/BCI.HTM">Business Cycle Indicators</a> (%)</th>
<th scope="col">November</th>
<th scope="col">October</th>
<th scope="col">September</th>
<th scope="col">August 6-Month % (AR)</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Leading</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>10.2</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>1.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Coincident</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-1.4</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>2.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Lagging</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>-6.3</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>3.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

The Conference Board's Index of Leading Economic Indicators continued its uptrend last month giving a strong signal that the recent recession has ended. The 0.9% rise during November was the eighth consecutive monthly increase. [...]

U.S. Leading Economic Indicators Rise Again Signaling Positive Growth

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: 2009

Jump to:

Chicago Fed Index Recovered Recent Declines To Best In Two Years

United States' Home Price Performance All Over The Map

United States' Home PricePerformance All Over The Map

UK Consumer Confidence Continues Backtrack

UK Consumer Confidence Continues Backtrack

UK Retail Sales Take A Sett Back In November But Cling To Trend Rise

Philadelphia Fed Index Gains With Strength in Employment

U.S. Leading Economic Indicators Rise Again Signaling Positive Growth