Tom Moeller

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>
      
           <p><a href="/comment/120703e_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120703e.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120703f_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120703f.png"></a></p>

            <p>Inventories in the factory sector fell 0.2%, as they did in April. That
      lessened the y/y rate of inventory accumulation to 3.5%, down from its
      13.6% rate one year ago. Lower rates of inventory accumulation occurred
      across industries. Unfilled orders were essentially unchanged for the
      third straight month. The y/y gain fell to 8.2% from its high of 10.3%
      during all of last year. </p>
      <p>Orders in the manufacturing sector recovered 0.7% (3.0% y/y) during May
      and reversed the barely revised April decline. Expectations were for no
      change. Durable goods orders increased 1.3%, little changed from last
      week's advance report. Nondurable goods orders (which equal shipments)
      inched up just 0.2% (1.5% y/y), the gain held back by an unchanged reading
      (2.1% y/y) for petroleum refineries. Shipments of textile products rose
      1.3% (6.4% y/y) while food products shipments increased 0.8% (-2.4% y/y).
      These gains were offset by 0.4% declines in apparel (+4.8% y/y), paper
      products (-1.4% y/y) and basic chemicals (-2.4% y/y).&nbsp; </p>
      <p>The factory sector figures are available in Haver's <b>USECON </b>database.
      The expectation figure is in <b>AS1REPNA</b>.</p>
           <p><a href="/comment/120703g_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120703g.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120703h_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120703h.png"></a></p>      
      <p>&nbsp;</p>
      
      
<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" ><b>Factory Sector -
              NAICS Classification </b>(%)</th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>May</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Apr</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Mar</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Y/Y</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2011</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2010</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2009</b></th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="681">New Orders</td>
            <td  >0.7</td>
            <td  >-0.7</td>
            <td  >-2.1</td>
            <td  >3.0</td>
            <td  >11.8</td>
            <td  >18.0</td>
            <td  >-23.1</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="681">Shipments</td>
            <td  >0.5</td>
            <td  >-0.2</td>
            <td  >0.1</td>
            <td  >4.9</td>
            <td  >11.8</td>
            <td  >11.2</td>
            <td  >-18.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="681">Inventories</td>
            <td  >-0.2</td>
            <td  >-0.2</td>
            <td  >0.1</td>
            <td  >3.5</td>
            <td  >9.4</td>
            <td  >8.8</td>
            <td  >-6.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="681">Unfilled Orders</td>
            <td  >-0.0</td>
            <td  >-0.1</td>
            <td  >0.0</td>
            <td  >8.2</td>
            <td  >10.3</td>
            <td  >9.6</td>
            <td  >-19.5</td>
          </tr>
              </tbody>
            </table>
            </span>
</body></html>  

Inventories in the factory sector fell 0.2%, as they did in April. That lessened the y/y rate of inventory accumulation to 3.5%, down from its 13.6% rate one year ago. Lower rates of inventory accumulation occurred across industries. [...]

U.S. Factory Inventories Decumulate

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>
      
           <p><a href="/comment/120703a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120703a.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120703b_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120703b.png"></a></p>

            <p>The start of the Summer driving season hasn't
            yet helped the price of gasoline. <b>The
            pump price of regular gasoline declined eight cents to $3.38 per
            gallon last week</b>. Since early April prices have fallen fifty
            eight cents (-14.8%). Haver Analytics' seasonally-adjusted price for
            regular <b>fell five cents to $3.09 per gallon.</b> This seasonally
            adjusted price is lower than the actual because gas prices typically
            rise with the summer driving season. </p>
            <p>The price for a barrel of <b>light sweet crude oil</b> fell $1.12
            last week to $80.29. Yesterday, the cost of crude rose to $83.75 per
            barrel. Prices peaked at $113.93 in April, 2011. Brent crude ticked
            up last week to $92.22 per barrel and rose further to $96.41
            yesterday.</p>
            <p><b>Reduced driving and improved fuel economy lowered the demand
            for gasoline by 4.8% y/y last week.</b> The demand for residual fuel
            oil, used for heating, was off 42.8% y/y while distillate demand was
            roughly unchanged y/y. <b>Inventories</b> of crude oil and petroleum
            products ticked up 0.4% year-to-year. That comparison was improved
            versus the 5.0%y/y decline this past fall.</p>
            <p><b>Natural gas </b>prices improved to $2.76 per mmbtu last week
            but were down 36.1% y/y. Yesterday, prices held steady w/w but still
            were off from the early-January 2010 peak of $6.50.</p>
            <p>The energy price data are reported by the U.S. Department of
            Energy and can be found in Haver's <b>WEEKLY </b>database. The daily
            figures are in <b>DAILY</b> and the gasoline demand figures are in <b>OILWKLY.</b></p>

           <p><a href="/comment/120703c_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120703c.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120703d_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120703d.png"></a></p>      
      <p>&nbsp;</p>
      
      
<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
        <thead>
                <tr>
                  <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Weekly Price</th>
                  <th scope="col" >07/02/12</th>
                  <th scope="col" >06/25/12</th>
                  <th scope="col" >06/18/12</th>
                  <th scope="col" >Y/Y%</th>
                  <th scope="col" >2011</th>
                  <th scope="col" >2010</th>
                  <th scope="col" >2009</th>
                </tr>
              </thead>
              <tbody>
                <tr>
                  <td class="firstcol" >Retail Regular Gasoline ($
                    per Gallon, Regular)</td>
                  <td  >3.36</td>
                  <td  >3.44</td>
                  <td  >3.53</td>
                  <td  >-6.2</td>
                  <td  >3.52</td>
                  <td  >2.78</td>
                  <td  >2.35</td>
                </tr>
                <tr class="odd">
                  <td class="firstcol" >Light Sweet Crude Oil, WTI ($
                    per bbl.)</td>
                  <td  >80.29</td>
                  <td  >81.41</td>
                  <td  >83.32</td>
                  <td  >-14.3</td>
                  <td  >95.14</td>
                  <td  >79.51</td>
                  <td  >61.39</td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                  <td class="firstcol" >Natural Gas ($/mmbtu)</td>
                  <td  >2.76</td>
                  <td  >2.54</td>
                  <td  >2.24</td>
                  <td  >-36.1</td>
                  <td  >3.99</td>
                  <td  >4.40</td>
                  <td  >3.95</td>
                </tr>
              </tbody>
            </table>
            </span>
</body></html>  

The start of the Summer driving season hasn't yet helped the price of gasoline. The pump price of regular gasoline declined eight cents to $3.38 per gallon last week. Since early April prices have fallen fifty eight cents (-14.8%). [...]

U.S. Petroleum Prices Continue Lower

Louise Curley

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>
      
           <p><a href="/comment/120703i_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120703i.png" align="left"></a>
    
      There are two diffusion indexes that track China's purchasing managers'
      views of the manufacturing outlook.&nbsp; One is China's official
      Purchasing Managers Index compiled by the China Federation of Logistics
      and Purchasing and the other is the HSBC manufacturing PMI published by
      Markit Economics.&nbsp; In HAVER'S data bases, the former can be found at
      S924VM@ EMERGEPR, and the latter at S924M@ PMI. The series differ, among
      other things,&nbsp; in the size of their samples--the official series is
      based on a sample of 727 and the Markit PMI on a sample of 429.&nbsp; The
      two series also differ in their seasonal adjustment
      procedures.&nbsp;&nbsp;
      </p>
      <p>The two series are shown in the attached chart. The official series has
      generally been above the Markit series, but the two series have shown the
      same general trend. The correlation between the two series is fairly high
      at .83.&nbsp;&nbsp; Both indicators are currently forecasting a slowdown
      in China's manufacturing activity.&nbsp; The Official diffusion index for
      June at 50.2 was just slightly above the 50&nbsp; mark which represents
      the dividing line between expansion and contraction. The Markit PMI&nbsp;
      for June was 48.2 continuing&nbsp; to be in the contractionary area.&nbsp;
      It has remained in a rather narrow band just below the 50 mark for most of
      the past year, suggesting that while a slowdown in manufacturing in China
      is likely, a sharp drop is not imminent.
      </p>
           
<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
        <thead> 
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" ><b>China's Manufacturing PMIs</b></th>
            <th scope="col" >Jun</th>
            <th scope="col" >May</th>
            <th scope="col" >Apr</th>
            <th scope="col" >Mar</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
  <td height=21  width=412 > Official PMI </td>
  <td  width=114 height="21" align="right" >50.2</td>
  <td  width=132 height="21" align="right" >50.4</td>
  <td  width=132 height="21" align="right" >--</td>
  <td  width=132 height="21" align="right" >--</td>
 
 <tr height=17 style='height:12.75pt'>
  <td height=22  width=412 >Markit PMI</td>
  <td  width=114 height="22" align="right" >48.2</td>
  <td  width=132 height="22" align="right" >48.4</td>
  <td  width=132 height="22" align="right" >--</td>
  <td  width=132 height="22" align="right">--</td>
                </tr>
              
            </table>
            </span>
</body></html>  

There are two diffusion indexes that track China's purchasing managers' views of the manufacturing outlook. One is China's official Purchasing Managers Index compiled by the China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing and the other [...]

China's Manufacturing PMIs

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	  <br>
      
      
      <p></p>
      
     <p><a href="/comment/120702e_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120702e.png" align="left"></a>
      <b>The value of construction put-in-place rose 0.9% during May following a
      0.6% April increase</b>. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.2% rise and
      data back to January 2010 were revised. Private sector spending jumped 1.6%
      (13.1% y/y) after a 1.3% April increase. Residential building continued to
      recover strongly and jumped 3.0% (7.5% y/y). Single-family construction
      increased 1.8% (14.8% y/y) and multi-family building rose 6.3% (50.3%
      y/y). The value of spending on improvements surged 3.6% (-3.4% y/y). In
      the public sector, building activity slipped 0.4% (-3.9% y/y). Spending on
      highways &amp; streets, which is 29% of total public construction
      spending, fell 0.5% (+1.6% y/y) while office building declined 4.9% (-11.4%
      y/y). Educational building activity dropped 3.0% (-7.1% y/y) while
      transportation ticked up 0.5% (-6.5% y/y).</p>
      <p>The construction spending figures are in Haver's <b>USECON</b> database
      and the expectations figure is contained in the <b>AS1REPNA</b> database.</p>
      <br>
      <br>
      <br>
      
          <p><a href="/comment/120702f_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120702f.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120702g_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120702g.png"></a></p>
      
            
      
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" ><b>Construction Put in
              Place (%)</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>May</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Apr</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Mar</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>Y/Y</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2011</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2010</b></th>
            <th scope="col" ><b>2009</b></th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        
          
            <td class="firstcol" >Total</td>
            <td>0.9</td>
          <span id="articletext">
          <td>0.6</td>
          <td>-0.3</td>
          <td>7.0</td>
          <td>-3.1</td>
          <td>-11.2</td>
          <td>-15.3</td>
          
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Private</td>
            <td>1.6</td>
            <td>1.3</td>
            <td>0.0</td>
            <td>13.1</td>
            <td>-1.1</td>
            <td>-15.2</td>
            <td>-22.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Residential</td>
            <td>3.0</td>
            <td>1.7</td>
            <td>-1.3</td>
            <td>7.5</td>
            <td>-1.0</td>
            <td>-2.9</td>
            <td>-29.9</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Nonresidential</td>
            <td>0.4</td>
            <td>0.9</td>
            <td>1.2</td>
            <td>18.6</td>
            <td>-1.3</td>
            <td>-24.0</td>
            <td>-16.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Public</td>
            <td>-0.4</td>
            <td>-0.9</td>
            <td>-1.1</td>
            <td>-3.9</td>
            <td>-6.4</td>
            <td>-3.6</td>
            <td>2.1</td>
          </tr>
             
      
      </span>
        
</html>

The value of construction put-in-place rose 0.9% during May following a 0.6% April increase. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.2% rise and data back to January 2010 were revised. Private sector spending jumped 1.6% (13.1% y/y) [...]

U.S. Construction Spending Stabilizes

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>
      
           <p><a href="/comment/120702a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120702a.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120702b_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120702b.png"></a></p>

       <p><b>Factory sector activity hasn't shown this much weakness since the
      end of the last recession.</b> What's worse is that momentum is down. The
      June ISM Composite Index of industrial sector activity dropped to 49.7
      from an unrevised 53.5 in May. The decline compared to Consensus
      expectations for a lesser decline to 52.0. The figure was the first below
      the break-even level of 50 since July of 2009. During the last ten years
      there has been an 80% correlation between the index level and the
      three-month change in factory sector production.</p>
      <p>The largest component series decline was new orders. Its 12.3 point
      drop to 47.8 was to its lowest reading since the recession. That was
      followed by the second consecutive monthly decline in the production
      series to 51.0 and a two point drop in inventories to 44.0. The employment
      component was under less downward pressure and slipped to 56.6. During the
      last ten years there has been an 88% correlation between the level of the
      index and the m/m change in factory sector payrolls. Working the other
      way, the supplier deliveries series ticked up m/m to a still-low 48.9,
      indicating fast delivery speeds.</p>
      <p>The price index fell sharply to 37.0, its lowest since April 2009. Just
      7 percent of firms raised prices while 33 percent lowered them. During the
      last ten years there has been an 83% correlation between the index and the
      m/m change in the core intermediate producer price index.</p>
      <p>The separate index of new export orders fell sharply to 47.5, its
      lowest since the recession's end. The imports series was steady at 53.5.</p>
      <p>The figures from the Institute For Supply Management (ISM) are
      diffusion indexes and can be found in Haver's <b>USECON</b> database. The
      expectations data are in the <b>AS1REPNA</b> database.</p>

           <p><a href="/comment/120702c_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120702c.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120702d_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120702d.png"></a></p>      
      <p>&nbsp;</p>
      
      
<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" ><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S2/@S201/@S201.HTM"><b>ISM
              Mfg</b></a></th>
            <th scope="col" >Jun</th>
            <th scope="col" >May</th>
            <th scope="col" >Apr</th>
            <th scope="col" >Jun'11</th>
            <th scope="col" >2011</th>
            <th scope="col" >2010</th>
            <th scope="col" >2009</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Composite Index</td>
            <td  >49.7</td>
            <td  >53.5</td>
            <td  >54.8</td>
            <td  >59.7</td>
            <td  >55.2</td>
            <td  >57.3</td>
            <td  >46.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;New Orders</td>
            <td  >47.8</td>
            <td  >60.1</td>
            <td  >58.2</td>
            <td  >53.6</td>
            <td  >56.4</td>
            <td  >59.2</td>
            <td  >52.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Production</td>
            <td  >51.0</td>
            <td  >55.6</td>
            <td  >61.0</td>
            <td  >55.9</td>
            <td  >57.4</td>
            <td  >61.0</td>
            <td  >50.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Employment</td>
            <td  >56.6</td>
            <td  >56.9</td>
            <td  >57.3</td>
            <td  >61.0</td>
            <td  >57.4</td>
            <td  >57.3</td>
            <td  >40.7</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Supplier Deliveries</td>
            <td  >48.9</td>
            <td  >48.7</td>
            <td  >49.2</td>
            <td  >55.2</td>
            <td  >54.7</td>
            <td  >58.1</td>
            <td  >51.6</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Inventories</td>
            <td  >44.0</td>
            <td  >46.0</td>
            <td  >48.5</td>
            <td  >53.5</td>
            <td  >50.1</td>
            <td  >50.8</td>
            <td  >37.1</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Prices Paid Index (NSA)</td>
            <td  >37.0</td>
            <td  >47.5</td>
            <td  >61.0</td>
            <td  >68.0</td>
            <td  >65.2</td>
            <td  >68.9</td>
            <td  >48.3</td>
          </tr>
             </tbody>
      </table>
      </span>
</body></html>          
          


Factory sector activity hasn't shown this much weakness since the end of the last recession. What's worse is that momentum is down. The June ISM Composite Index of industrial sector activity dropped to 49.7 from an unrevised 53.5 in [...]

U.S. ISM Factory Index & Prices Fall To Lowest in Roughly Three Years

<html>

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<title>FHFA Home Price Index Decline Lessens Y</title>
</head>



<div id="content">
  <div id="rightside">
    <div id="entire" class="col">
      <br>
      <span id="articletext">
      <p><b>Factory sector activity hasn't shown this much weakness since the
      end of the last recession.</b> What's worse is that momentum is down. The
      June ISM Composite Index of industrial sector activity dropped to 49.7
      from an unrevised 53.5 in May. The decline compared to Consensus
      expectations for a lesser decline to 52.0. The figure was the first below
      the break-even level of 50 since July of 2009. During the last ten years
      there has been an 80% correlation between the index level and the
      three-month change in factory sector production.</p>
      <p>The largest component series decline was new orders. Its 12.3 point
      drop to 47.8 was to its lowest reading since the recession. That was
      followed by the second consecutive monthly decline in the production
      series to 51.0 and a two point drop in inventories to 44.0. The employment
      component was under less downward pressure and slipped to 56.6. During the
      last ten years there has been an 88% correlation between the level of the
      index and the m/m change in factory sector payrolls. Working the other
      way, the supplier deliveries series ticked up m/m to a still-low 48.9,
      indicating fast delivery speeds.</p>
      <p>The price index fell sharply to 37.0, its lowest since April 2009. Just
      7 percent of firms raised prices while 33 percent lowered them. During the
      last ten years there has been an 83% correlation between the index and the
      m/m change in the core intermediate producer price index.</p>
      <p>The separate index of new export orders fell sharply to 47.5, its
      lowest since the recession's end. The imports series was steady at 53.5.</p>
      <p>The figures from the Institute For Supply Management (ISM) are
      diffusion indexes and can be found in Haver's <b>USECON</b> database. The
      expectations data are in the <b>AS1REPNA</b> database.</p>
      <p>&nbsp;</p>
      <table class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0" width="1231">
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="484"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S2/@S201/@S201.HTM"><b>ISM
              Mfg</b></a></th>
            <th scope="col" width="106">Jun</th>
            <th scope="col" width="106">May</th>
            <th scope="col" width="106">Apr</th>
            <th scope="col" width="106">Jun'11</th>
            <th scope="col" width="106">2011</th>
            <th scope="col" width="106">2010</th>
            <th scope="col" width="107">2009</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="484">Composite Index</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">49.7</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">53.5</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">54.8</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">59.7</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">55.2</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">57.3</td>
            <td align="center" width="107">46.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="484">&nbsp;New Orders</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">47.8</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">60.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">58.2</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">53.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">56.4</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">59.2</td>
            <td align="center" width="107">52.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="484">&nbsp;Production</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">51.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">55.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">61.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">55.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">57.4</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">61.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="107">50.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="484">&nbsp;Employment</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">56.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">56.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">57.3</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">61.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">57.4</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">57.3</td>
            <td align="center" width="107">40.7</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="484">&nbsp;Supplier Deliveries</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">48.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">48.7</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">49.2</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">55.2</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">54.7</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">58.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="107">51.6</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="484">&nbsp;Inventories</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">44.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">46.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">48.5</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">53.5</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">50.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">50.8</td>
            <td align="center" width="107">37.1</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="484">Prices Paid Index (NSA)</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">37.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">47.5</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">61.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">68.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">65.2</td>
            <td align="center" width="106">68.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="107">48.3</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      </span>
    </div>
  </div>
</div>

<div id="footer" class="sprites">
  <ul>
  </ul>
</div>

  <div id="rightside">
    </div>
      <span id="articletitle">U.S. Construction Spending Stabilizes</span><br>
      <span id="byline">by <a href="http://www.haver.com/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
      Moeller</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;July 1, 2012</span>
      <p>The value of construction put-in-place rose 0.9% during May following a
      0.6% April increase. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.2% rise and
      data back to January 2010 were revised. Private sector spending jumped 1.6%
      (13.1% y/y) after a 1.3% April increase. Residential building continued to
      recover strongly and jumped 3.0% (7.5% y/y). Single-family construction
      increased 1.8% (14.8% y/y) and multi-family building rose 6.3% (50.3%
      y/y). The value of spending on improvements surged 3.6% (-3.4% y/y). In
      the public sector, building activity slipped 0.4% (-3.9% y/y). Spending on
      highways &amp; streets, which is 29% of total public construction
      spending, fell 0.5% (+1.6% y/y) while office building declined 4.9% (-11.4%
      y/y). Educational building activity dropped 3.0% (-7.1% y/y) while
      transportation ticked up 0.5% (-6.5% y/y).</p>
      <p>The construction spending figures are in Haver's <b>USECON</b> database
      and the expectations figure is contained in the <b>AS1REPNA</b> database.</p>
      
        <colgroup>
          <col>
          <col>
          <col>
          <col>
          <col>
          <col>
          <col>
          <col>
        </colgroup>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="574"><b>Construction Put in
              Place (%)</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="93"><b>May</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="93"><b>Apr</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="93"><b>Mar</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="93"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="93"><b>2011</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="94"><b>2010</b></th>
            <th scope="col" width="94"><b>2009</b></th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        
          
            <td class="firstcol" width="574">Total</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">0.9</td>
          <span id="articletext">
          <td align="center" width="93">0.6</td>
          <td align="center" width="93">-0.3</td>
          <td align="center" width="93">7.0</td>
          <td align="center" width="93">-3.1</td>
          <td align="center" width="94">-11.2</td>
          <td align="center" width="94">-15.3</td>
          
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="574">&nbsp;Private</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">1.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">1.3</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">0.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">13.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">-1.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="94">-15.2</td>
            <td align="center" width="94">-22.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="574">&nbsp;&nbsp;Residential</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">3.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">1.7</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">-1.3</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">7.5</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">-1.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="94">-2.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="94">-29.9</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="574">&nbsp;&nbsp;Nonresidential</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">0.4</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">0.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">1.2</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">18.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">-1.3</td>
            <td align="center" width="94">-24.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="94">-16.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="574">&nbsp;Public</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">-0.4</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">-0.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">-1.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">-3.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="93">-6.4</td>
            <td align="center" width="94">-3.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="94">2.1</td>
          </tr>
        
      
      </span>
    
  


<div id="footer" class="sprites">
  <ul>
  </ul>
</div>




</html>

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>
      
           <p><a href="/comment/120629d_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120629d.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/120629e_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120629e.png"></a></p>
      
       <p>The University of Michigan's Index of Consumer Sentiment for all of
      June fell to 73.2 compared to 74.1 at mid-month and 79.3 in May. The
      latest figure was the lowest since December and compared unfavorably to
      expectations for 74.4. Consumer expectations fell the most to 67.8
      following several months of strong gain. The current conditions index
      reversed the prior month's increase with a fall to 81.5. During the last
      ten years there has been a 61% correlation between the level of sentiment
      and the three-month change in real personal consumption expenditures.</p>
      <p>The Reuters/University of Michigan survey data are not seasonally
      adjusted. The readings are based on telephone interviews with over 300
      households. Data can be found in Haver's <b>USECON </b>database. The
      expectations figure is from Action Economics and is found in Haver's <b>AS1REPNA</b>
      database.</p>
      <p><b>Consumer Deleveraging May Be Over</b> from the Federal Reserve Bank
      of Cleveland can be found <a href="http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/trends/2012/0712/01houcon.cfm">here</a>.</p>
      
<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
	    <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >University of Michigan<br>
              (Q1'66 = 100)</th>
            <th scope="col" >Jun</th>
            <th scope="col" >May</th>
            <th scope="col" >Apr</th>
            <th scope="col" >Jun'11</th>
            <th scope="col" >2011</th>
            <th scope="col" >2010</th>
            <th scope="col" >2009</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Consumer Sentiment</td>
            <td  >73.2</td>
            <td  >79.3</td>
            <td  >76.4</td>
            <td  >71.5</td>
            <td  >67.3</td>
            <td  >71.8</td>
            <td  >66.3</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Current Economic Conditions</td>
            <td  >81.5</td>
            <td  >87.2</td>
            <td  >82.9</td>
            <td  >82.0</td>
            <td  >79.1</td>
            <td  >80.9</td>
            <td  >69.6</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Consumer Expectations</td>
            <td  >67.8</td>
            <td  >74.3</td>
            <td  >72.3</td>
            <td  >64.7</td>
            <td  >59.8</td>
            <td  >66.0</td>
            <td  >64.1</td>
          </tr>
             </tbody>
      </table>
      </span>
</body></html>


The University of Michigan's Index of Consumer Sentiment for all of June fell to 73.2 compared to 74.1 at mid-month and 79.3 in May. The latest figure was the lowest since December and compared unfavorably to expectations for 74.4. [...]

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Is Disappointing

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

PMIs show still-elevated but slowing US inflation

AI boosting US investment in data centers

US productivity growth has been significantly faster than in other major economies

Consumers' short-term US inflation expectations still elevated while longer-term expectations of financial markets are steady

US financial markets have gotten used to elevated policy uncertainty

FOMC now expects more rate cuts going forward than in June

China gaining ASEAN exports while US exports slump

Job openings less than the number unemployed in July for first time since 2021

Reaccelerating goods price inflation along with sticky services inflation clouds the outlook

Falling oil prices aren't pulling down inflation expectations, pointing to a boost from increased tariffs

Equity market exuberance outpacing macroeconomic data

Apart from Japan, Blue Chip forecasters expect further sizable monetary easing

US production rebounded in Q2, but demand continued to slow

US leader, Germany trailer for real GDP growth over past 3 years

Negative US inflation surprises leading G10 down

Deflation continues in China

Incoming data surprising on downside in US; positive surprises elsewhere

FOMC expects more inflation and less growth than in March

With escalation of Israel/Iran conflict, geopolitical risk has recently surged while US trade policy uncertainty has ebbed

Renewed supply chain pressures point to a rebound in global inflation ahead

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

Service Health

A premier time series data platform for the global strategy, research, and quant communities. 

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Featured Data Additions

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

251201J50.jpg

251201K50.jpg

Factory sector activity remains under pressure. The ISM U.S. manufacturing PMI slipped to 48.2 during November following a decline to 48.7 in October after rising to 49.1 during September, according to the Institute for Supply Management. These figures are below the 50 expansion-contraction dividing line. As a result, they indicate that U.S. manufacturing sector activity contracted for the ninth consecutive month. Nevertheless, the reading in November stood above a low of 46.9 in October of last year. A November index of 49.1 had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.

Declines amongst the component series were widespread last month. The new orders component declined to 47.4 after rising to 49.4 in October. It was the lowest level since July, down from a January high of 55.1. A slightly higher 20.7% (NSA) of respondents reported higher orders while an increased 28.4% reported them lower. The employment reading fell to a three-month low of 44.0 from 46.0 in October. A lessened 10.8% (NSA) of respondents raised hiring while a higher 25.1% reduced it. The supplier deliveries index dropped sharply to 49.3 from 54.2. A greatly lessened 6.1% (NSA) of respondents reported slower delivery speeds while a higher 7.6% reported faster speeds.

Working higher, the production index rose to 51.4 during November and reversed its October decline to 48.2. An increased 22.8% (NSA) of respondents reported higher production while a lessened 19.8% reported a decline. The inventories index increased sharply to 48.9 last month after falling to 45.8 in October. A slightly increased 14.4% (NSA) of respondents reported higher inventories while a lessened 17.7% reported them lower.

The prices index edged higher to 58.5 (NSA) during November after falling to 58.0 in October. It remained below a high of 69.8 in April, but remained well above its low of 39.4 in December 2022. A roughly steady 27.2% of respondents reported higher prices, a ten month low, while a lessened 10.2% reported prices lower.

In other series, the export orders index rose to a seasonally adjusted 46.2, a three-month high, in November after rising to 44.5 in October. It remained up from a 40.1 May low. The imports index surged to an eight-month high of 48.9 last month from 45.4 in October. Nevertheless, the orders index remained below a high of 52.6 in February. The order backlog series fell to a seven-month low of 44.0.

The ISM figures are based on responses from over 400 purchasing and supply executives from 18 industries, which are weighted according to each industry’s contribution to GDP. These data are diffusion indexes where a reading above 50 indicates expansion; below 50 indicates contraction. The ISM Manufacturing PMI is a composite index based on the diffusion indexes of five of the indexes (seasonally adjusted) with equal weights: New Orders, Production, Employment, Supplier Deliveries, and Inventories. The figures from the Institute for Supply Management can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database; further detail is found in the **SURVEYS** database. The expectations number is available in Haver’s **AS1REPNA** database.

251201L50.jpg

251201M50.jpg

- Decline is to lowest level since July.
- New orders, employment & supplier deliveries drop.
- Despite a small gain, price index remains near ten-month low.

U.S. ISM Manufacturing PMI Declines in November; Price Index Edges Higher

251126V5.jpg

251126W5.jpg

New orders for durable goods rose 0.5% (7.2% y/y) in September after a 3.0% jump, which followed a 2.8% July decline. A 1.0% shortfall had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.

A 0.4% (15.8% y/y) rise in transportation sector orders followed an 8.0% August surge, led by commercial aircraft orders. Motor vehicle & parts orders rose 0.4% (4.0% y/y) after increasing 0.8% in August. Orders excluding transportation rose 0.6% (3.1% y/y) after a 0.5% gain. Machinery orders edged 0.1% higher (6.1% y/y) in September after a 2.2% rise. Orders for computers & electronic products rose 0.5% (3.3% y/y) following a 1.1% decline while electrical equipment & appliance orders strengthened 1.5% (6.6% y/y), the strongest of six consecutive increases. Orders for fabricated metal products increased 0.5% (0.8% y/y) for a second month while primary metals orders surged 1.4% (5.4% y/y) after a 0.5% rise.

Shipments of all manufacturing industries eased 0.1% in September (+2.3% y/y) after falling 0.3% in August. Shipments of durable goods edged 0.1% higher (4.8% y/y) after easing 0.1%. Nondefense capital goods shipments excluding aircraft, an indicator of equipment investment in the national accounts, rose 0.9% (4.1% y/y) in September after falling 0.1% in August. Machinery shipments increased 1.4% (4.6% y/y) after easing 0.1% while computer & electronic product shipments were off 0.1% (+4.9% y/y) following a 0.2% dip. Electronic equipment, appliances & components shipments rose 0.4% (4.1% y/y) after rising 0.1%. Motor vehicle & parts shipments rose 0.5% (3.9% y/y) during September following a 0.6% rise. Nondurable goods shipments eased 0.2% (-0.1% y/y) after 0.4% decline.

Unfilled durable goods orders increased 0.7% (8.2% y/y) in September for the second month in a row. Excluding a 1.0% surge in transportation, unfilled increased a steady 0.2% (0.9% y/y). Total factory sector inventories eased 0.1% (+1.4% y/y). Durable goods inventories slipped 0.1% (+1.9% y/y) for the second consecutive month. Excluding the transportation sector, durable goods inventories rose 0.2% (2.3% y/y). Nondurable goods inventories were roughly stable (+0.6% y/y) for the second straight month.

The factory sector data are available in Haver’s **USECON** database. The Action Economics Forecast Survey is in the **AS1REPNA** database.

251126X5.jpg

251126Y5.jpg

- Broad-based orders improvement follows August jump.
- Durable shipments gain reverses prior month’s dip.
- Order backlogs grow for second month; inventories ease.

U.S. Advance Durable Goods Orders Unexpectedly Increase in September

Sandy Batten

251126A2.jpg

251126B2.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance fell to 216,000 (unchanged y/y) in the week ended November 22 from a slightly upwardly revised 222,000 in the prior week (previously 220,000). This was the lowest weekly reading since April and was tied for the lowest since February. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected 226,000 initial claims for last week. The four-week moving average of initial claims edged down to 223,750 from 224,750.

Federal government workers filed 1,724 claims in the week ended November 15, the fourth consecutive weekly decline from a recent high of 10,062 in the week of October 18.

Continuing claims (previous claims filers who are still receiving unemployment benefits) continued to edge higher, rising to 1.960 million in the week of November 15 from a downwardly revised 1.953 million in the prior week (previously 1.974 million). While new claims have been well contained recently, continuing claims have risen persistently since midyear, indicating that while the pace of layoffs has not increased meaningfully, hiring has slowed. Consequently, those unemployed are having more difficulty finding new jobs and hence are receiving unemployment benefits for longer, a sign that labor market conditions are softening.

Federal government employees continuing benefits fell to 33,083 in the week of November 8, the first weekly decline since the end of August, from 38,867 in the previous week.

In the week ending November 15, the insured rate of unemployment (the number of beneficiaries as a percent of covered employment) was unchanged at 1.3%. It has been at this rate since the end of May.

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ended November 8, the highest unemployment rates were in New Jersey (2.30%), Washington (2.20%), Massachusetts (1.90%), District of Columbia (1.90%), and California (1.80%). The lowest were in South Dakota (0.30%), Florida (0.30%), North Carolina (0.40%), and Louisiana (0.40%). Rates in other notable states include Pennsylvania (1.40%), Illinois (1.50%), New York (1.60%), Texas (1.10%), Michigan (1.40%) and Ohio (0.80%). These state data 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.

251126C2.jpg

251126D2.jpg

- Initial unemployment claims fell to 216,000, the lowest weekly figure since April.
- Continued claims edged up to 1.96 million, indicating that the unemployed are still having increasing difficulty finding a job.

U.S. Initial Unemployment Insurance Claims Fell in Latest Week

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

251126A1.jpg

251126B1.jpg

The number of weekly mortgage loans rose 0.2% (52.7% y/y) during the week ended November 21 after declining 5.2% (+62.0% y/y) during the week ended November 14, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey. Applications for loans to purchase a house surged 7.6% (18.8% y/y) in the latest week after declining 2.3% (+24.0% y/y) in the prior week. Applications for loan refinancing declined 5.7% (+117.3% y/y) in the week ended November 21, following a decline of 7.3% (+124.7% y/y) in the week ended November 14.

The effective interest rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage increased 3bps to 6.58% in the week ended November 21 from 6.55% during the prior week. The rate on a 15-year fixed rate loan eased 2bps to 5.98% in the latest week from 6.00%, while interest rates on a 30-year JUMBO loan rose 14bps to 6.65% from 6.51%. Rates on a 5-year ARM dropped 31bps to 5.64% from 5.95%. The November 14 rate was the highest rate since the first week of September.

Loans to refinance an existing mortgage fell to 53.4% of total applications in the week ended November 21 from 55.4% in the prior week. The percentage of total loans that were ARMs rose to 7.9% from 7.5% one week earlier.

The average loan size rose 0.2% w/w to $395,600 in the week ended November 21 from $394,900 the prior week. The size of conventional purchase loans declined 1.4% w/w to $427,200 from $433,400, while the size of refinanced loans rose 1.1% w/w to $368,000 from $363,900 one week earlier.

The Mortgage Bankers Association Survey covers 75% of all U.S. retail residential mortgage applications and has been conducted weekly since 1990. Respondents include mortgage bankers, commercial banks and thrifts. The base period and value for all indexes is March 16, 1990=100. The figures for weekly mortgage applications and interest rates are available in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database.

- Applications for loans to purchase surged, while those for refinancing declined.
- Interest rates on 30-year fixed-rate mortgage inched up for the fourth consecutive week.
- Average loan size rose in the latest week.

U.S. Weekly Mortgage Applications Inched Up in The Latest Week

251125N0.jpg

251125O0.jpg

The Conference Board's Index of Consumer Confidence fell 7.1% in November to 88.7. A level of 92.5 had been expected this month in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The decline in Consumer Confidence was the fourth consecutive monthly drop. It followed a 0.1% October easing (revised -1.0%) and an unrevised 2.2% September shortfall. The index was 21.4% below its peak last November.

The Present Situation index declined 3.3% (-10.3% y/y) after rising 2.9% in October, revised from 1.4%, and falling an unrevised 3.7% in September. The Expectations Index weakened 12.0% (-32.6% y/y) after falling 3.5% in October, revised from -3.9%, after easing an unrevised 0.4% in September.

The percentage of respondents assessing business conditions as “good” fell to 20.1% in November after rising to 20.7% in October. It was the weakest reading since April. The percentage assessing conditions as “bad” rose to 16.9% from 14.5% in October, the most in over a year. The appraisal of labor market conditions weakened as a lessened 27.6% described “jobs plentiful” versus 28.6% in October. That remained below a high of 56.7% in March of 2022. Jobs were viewed as “hard to get” by a lessened 17.9% of respondents this month, but that was increased from a low of 10.5% in February 2023. The labor market differential calculated by Haver Analytics (the percentage of consumers who think jobs are plentiful minus the percentage who believe that jobs are currently hard to get) declined to 9.7% compared to 10.3% in October and 8.7% in September. This measure remained below a high of 47.1% in March 2022. It has a 60% correlation with the unemployment rate over the last ten years.

Expectations for business conditions continued to deteriorate this month as a lessened 15.9% of respondents expect conditions to improve over the next six months, after 18.9% did so in October. A higher 27.7% expect them to worsen, after rising from 22.2% in October. On employment, 14.6% expect the number of jobs to increase over the next six months versus 15.8% in October. The percentage expecting the number of jobs to decline in the next six months fell to 27.5% after rising to 28.8% in October	. A lessened 15.3% of respondents expect income to increase in six months, down from 18.2% in October. That remained off a high of 20.7% in November of last year and compares to a 13.8% who expect income to decrease, up from 11.8% in October.

The expected rate of price inflation over the next twelve months held steady at 5.7% after falling from 5.8% in September and 6.1% in August. These remain up from a low of 5.0% last November. Fifty percent of respondents expect interest rates to rise this year, up from a low of 47.2% October of 2024. The percentage of respondents expecting equity prices to increase over the next twelve months declined to 48.1%, down from 50.3% in October. The percentage expecting a decline in stock prices eased to 28.5% after falling to 28.8% in October.

The percentage of respondents planning to buy a home fell to 4.9% this month down from a high of 6.7% in May. Plans to purchase an automobile declined sharply to 10.9% of respondents this month, down from 13.15 averaged in the fourth quarter of last year. These readings, nevertheless, remain up from a low of 10.6% in April.

The Consumer Confidence data are available in Haver’s **CBDB** database. The total indexes, which are indexed to 1985=100, appear in **USECON**, and market expectations are in **AS1REPNA**.

251125P0.jpg

251125Q0.jpg

- Confidence level moves to lowest since April.
- Present situation index and expectations decline.
- Inflation expectations are contained.

Economy in Brief: 2012

Jump to:

U.S. Factory Inventories Decumulate

U.S. Petroleum Prices Continue Lower

China's Manufacturing PMIs

U.S. Construction Spending Stabilizes

U.S. ISM Factory Index & Prices Fall To Lowest in Roughly Three Years

U.S. ISM Factory Index & Prices Fall To Lowest in Roughly Three Years

U.S. ISM Factory Index & Prices Fall To Lowest in Roughly Three Years

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Is Disappointing