Tom Moeller

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041020a.jpg" width="353">
Mortgage applications rebounded last week from the prior period&#39;s slump, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA). The 7.9% w/w rise did not, however, recoup all of the prior week&#39;s 9.2% fall and so far in October applications are just 0.2% higher than the September average.
Purchase applications rose 5.8% following two weeks of sharp decline. So far in October purchase apps are 2.6% below the September average. During the last ten years there has been a 60% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing home sales.
Applications to refinance rebounded 10.6% w/w and for the month are 3.9% ahead of September.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage slipped to 5.90% from 5.95% the prior week. The effective rate on a 15-year mortgage fell to 5.34%.
&quot;The Nationalization of Housing Finance&quot; from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is available <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/mt/20041101/cover.pdf"> here</a>.
Fed Chairman Greenspan&#39;s comments made yesterday on the mortgage market and consumer debt can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20041019/default.htm"> here</a>.
The Mortgage Bankers Association surveys between 20 to 35 of the top lenders in the U.S. housing industry to derive its refinance, purchase and market indexes. The weekly survey accounts for more than 40% of all applications processed each week by mortgage lenders. Visit the Mortgage Bankers Association site <a href="http://www.mbaa.org"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYW/@S5/@S5.HTM"> MBA Mortgage Applications (3/16/90=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">10/15/04</th>
<th scope="col">10/08/04</th>
<th scope="col"> Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"> 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>709.9</td>
<td>658.2</td>
<td>8.7%</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
<td>799.7</td>
<td>625.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>461.4</td>
<td>436.3</td>
<td>19.5%</td>
<td>395.1</td>
<td>354.7</td>
<td>304.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>2,155.2</td>
<td>1,949.2</td>
<td>-2.2%</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
<td>3,388.0</td>
<td>2,491.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Mortgage applications rebounded last week from the prior period's slump, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA). The 7.9% w/w rise did not, however, recoup all of the prior week's 9.2% fall and so far in October [...]

Mortgage Applications Rebounded

Louise Curley

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041019e.jpg" width="353">
Poland reported that the non seasonally adjusted index of industrial production in September was 9.25% above the year ago figure. The seasonally adjusted and working day adjusted data are not yet available, but the Haver seasonally adjusted data show an increase of 2.28% from August to September. Most of the other eastern and central European countries that have recently joined the European Union1 and the Euro Zone itself have yet to release September data.
In the table below we show industrial production data for some of these countries and the Euro Zone as of August, 2004. All of the eastern and central European countries have shown good increases in production over the past few years. In the attached chart, we have taken Poland as representative of the central and eastern European countries and plotted its industrial production along with that of the Euro Zone. Industrial production for the Euro Zone as a whole has never been as much as 3% above its 2000 average in the past five years. In August of this year the index was 101.82, down 0.63% from July and only 1.61% above August 2003. The index for Poland, by contrast was 122.3 in August, that for Hungary, 120.0; that for Slovakia, 125.7;and that for the Czech Republic, 133.4.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Industrial Production (SA) or (SAWD) (2000=100)</th>
<th scope="col">Aug&nbsp; 04</th>
<th scope="col">Jul&nbsp; &nbsp; 04</th>
<th scope="col">Aug&nbsp; 03</th>
<th scope="col">M/M %</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp; 2003&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;2002 &nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col"> 2001&nbsp; &nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Poland&nbsp;</td>
<td>122.3</td>
<td>123.2</td>
<td>111.7</td>
<td>-0.73</td>
<td>9.49</td>
<td>110.5</td>
<td>102.1</td>
<td>100.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Hungary</td>
<td>120.0</td>
<td>120.0</td>
<td>115.5</td>
<td>0.00</td>
<td>3.90</td>
<td>113.2</td>
<td>107.0</td>
<td>104.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Czech Republic</td>
<td>133.4</td>
<td>138.9</td>
<td>122.5</td>
<td>-3.96</td>
<td>8.90</td>
<td>123.4</td>
<td>116.0</td>
<td>106.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Slovakia</td>
<td>125.7</td>
<td>122.6</td>
<td>117.2</td>
<td>2.53</td>
<td>7.25</td>
<td>120.9</td>
<td>114.8</td>
<td>107.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Euro Zone</td>
<td>101.82</td>
<td>102.47</td>
<td>100.21</td>
<td>-0.63</td>
<td>1.61</td>
<td>100.29</td>
<td>99.95</td>
<td>100.51</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td>Sep&nbsp; 04</td>
<td>Aug&nbsp; 04</td>
<td>Sep 03</td>
<td>M/M %</td>
<td>Y/Y %</td>
<td>&nbsp; 2003&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;2002 &nbsp;</td>
<td> 2001&nbsp; &nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Poland NSA</td>
<td>132.3</td>
<td>121.6</td>
<td>119.4</td>
<td>8.20</td>
<td>9.25</td>
<td>110.7</td>
<td>101.8</td>
<td>100.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Poland SA by Haver</td>
<td>125.6</td>
<td>122.8</td>
<td>115.1</td>
<td>2.28</td>
<td>9.12</td>
<td>110.7</td>
<td>101.8</td>
<td>100.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Poland reported that the non seasonally adjusted index of industrial production in September was 9.25% above the year ago figure. The seasonally adjusted and working day adjusted data are not yet available, but the Haver seasonally [...]

September Industrial Production in Poland Up Strongly: Increases in Production in the New European Union Member [...]

<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/041019b.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales slipped 0.2% last week after two weeks of respectable gain, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS.
The decline dropped sales so far in October 0.1% below the September average which, battered by Hurricanes, fell 0.7% versusAugust.
During the last ten years there has been a 60% correlation between y/y change in chain store sales and the change in non-auto retail sales less gasoline.
The ICSC-UBS retail chain-store sales index is constructed using the same-store sales reported by 78 stores of seven retailers: Dayton Hudson, Federated, Kmart, May, J.C. Penney, Sears and Wal-Mart. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"> <a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM"> ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">10/16/04</th>
<th scope="col">10/09/04</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"> 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Retail Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>436.4</td>
<td>437.3</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Chain store sales slipped 0.2% last week after two weeks of respectable gain, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS. The decline dropped sales so far in October 0.1% below the September average which, [...]

U.S. Chain Store Sales Slipped

<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/041019a.jpg" width="353">
The Composite Housing Market Index from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) recovered in October from the prior month&#39;s decline to 72, the highest level in a year.
The NAHB index is a diffusion index based on a survey of builders. Readings above 50 signal that more builders view conditions as good than poor.
The index of current single family home sales also surged to its highest in a year and the index of expected sales in six months jumped the highest level since 1999.
The index of traffic of prospective buyers rose to 54 and that was above the year to date average.
Visit the National Association of Home Builders using this <a href="http://www.nahb.org">link</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S4/@S4.HTM"> Nat&#39;l Association of Home Builders</a></th>
<th scope="col"> Oct</th>
<th scope="col">Sept</th>
<th scope="col"> Oct &#39;03</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Housing Market Index</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>56</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Composite Housing Market Index from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) recovered in October from the prior month's decline to 72, the highest level in a year. The NAHB index is a diffusion index based on a survey of [...]

Housing Market Index Recovered

<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/041019c.jpg" width="353">
Housing starts fell 6.0% last month to 1.898M following an upwardly revised 1.8% August rise.Consensus expectations had been for 1.95M starts in September.
Single-family starts fell a sharp 8.2% m/m. but the year to date single family average 6.2% above last year. Multi-family starts rose 4.7% following an upwardly revised 5.6% August gain.
Housing starts in the Northeast fell a hard 26.9% (-21.0% y/y) and were off m/m throughout the rest on the country
Building permits rose 1.8% m/m and gained back some of the prior month&#39;s 4.7% decline.
&quot;House Prices and Fundamental Value&quot; from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco can be found <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2004/el2004-27.pdf"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E901/@E90101/@E90101.HTM"> Housing Starts (000s, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col"> Sept</th>
<th scope="col"> Aug</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>1,898</td>
<td>2,020</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>1,853</td>
<td>1,710</td>
<td>1,601</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Single-family</td>
<td>1,540</td>
<td>1,678</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>1,505</td>
<td>1,363</td>
<td>1,272</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Multi-family</td>
<td>358</td>
<td>342</td>
<td>-7.0%</td>
<td>348</td>
<td>347</td>
<td>330</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Building Permits</td>
<td>2,005</td>
<td>1,969</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>1,889</td>
<td>1,749</td>
<td>1,637</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Housing starts fell 6.0% last month to 1.898M following an upwardly revised 1.8% August rise.Consensus expectations had been for 1.95M starts in September. Single-family starts fell a sharp 8.2% m/m. but the year to date single family [...]

Housing Starts Down More Than Expected

<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/041019d.jpg" width="353">
The Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) rose 0.2% last month. The gain matched Consensus forecasts, but the 0.3% rise in prices less food and energy exceeded the 0.2% expectation.
The CPI for &quot;core&quot; commodities rose for the first month in three, up 0.2%. The increase wholly reflected a rise in used motor vehicle prices. New vehicle prices fell 0.2% (-1.1% y/y). Household furnishings &amp; operations prices were unchanged (-0.2% y/y) as were apparel prices (-0.7% y/y).
Services prices less energy rose a moderate 0.3%. Shelter prices, up 0.4% (3.0% y/y), health care services, up 0.3% (5.0% y/y), and education &amp; communication prices, up 0.4% (1.7% y/y) all were relatively firm. Public transportation prices fell 1.1% (-2.8% y/y), the second consecutive down month.
Gasoline prices last month ticked up a modest 0.1% (+9.4% y/y) but in October have risen another 6.4% on average and were $2.04/gallon last week. Fuel oil prices were strong again with a 1.9% (23.9% y/y) rise. Natural gas prices fell 1.0% (+3.0% y/y) though they have recouped all of that decline in October.
The chained CPI, which adjusts for shifts in the mix of consumer purchases rose a firm 0.3%. It is similar to the PCE price deflator. The core chain price measure rose for the first time since April.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM"> Consumer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col"> Sept</th>
<th scope="col"> Aug</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total&nbsp;</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Services less Energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Energy</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
<td>-5.8%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Food</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>3.1%</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>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80113/@E80113.HTM"> Chained CPI: Total (NSA)</a></td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>&nbsp;2.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) rose 0.2% last month. The gain matched Consensus forecasts, but the 0.3% rise in prices less food and energy exceeded the 0.2% expectation. The CPI for "core" commodities rose for the first month in [...]

Consumer Prices Rose Moderately: Used Car Prices Firm

<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/041019d.jpg" width="353">
The Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) rose 0.2% last month. The gain matched Consensus forecasts, but the 0.3% rise in prices less food and energy exceeded the 0.2% expectation.
The CPI for &quot;core&quot; commodities rose for the first month in three, up 0.2%. The increase wholly reflected a rise in used motor vehicle prices. New vehicle prices fell 0.2% (-1.1% y/y). Household furnishings &amp; operations prices were unchanged (-0.2% y/y) as were apparel prices (-0.7% y/y).
Services prices less energy rose a moderate 0.3%. Shelter prices, up 0.4% (3.0% y/y), health care services, up 0.3% (5.0% y/y), and education &amp; communication prices, up 0.4% (1.7% y/y) all were relatively firm. Public transportation prices fell 1.1% (-2.8% y/y), the second consecutive down month.
Gasoline prices last month ticked up a modest 0.1% (+9.4% y/y) but in October have risen another 6.4% on average and were $2.04/gallon last week. Fuel oil prices were strong again with a 1.9% (23.9% y/y) rise. Natural gas prices fell 1.0% (+3.0% y/y) though they have recouped all of that decline in October.
The chained CPI, which adjusts for shifts in the mix of consumer purchases rose a firm 0.3%. It is similar to the PCE price deflator. The core chain price measure rose for the first time since April.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM"> Consumer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col"> Sept</th>
<th scope="col"> Aug</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total&nbsp;</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Services less Energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Energy</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
<td>-5.8%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Food</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>3.1%</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>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80113/@E80113.HTM"> Chained CPI: Total (NSA)</a></td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>&nbsp;2.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Housing Starts Down More Than Expected 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> October 19, 2004


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041019c.jpg" width="353">
Housing starts fell 6.0% last month to 1.898M following an upwardly revised 1.8% August rise.Consensus expectations had been for 1.95M starts in September.
Single-family starts fell a sharp 8.2% m/m. but the year to date single family average 6.2% above last year. Multi-family starts rose 4.7% following an upwardly revised 5.6% August gain.
Housing starts in the Northeast fell a hard 26.9% (-21.0% y/y) and were off m/m throughout the rest on the country
Building permits rose 1.8% m/m and gained back some of the prior month&#39;s 4.7% decline.
&quot;House Prices and Fundamental Value&quot; from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco can be found <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2004/el2004-27.pdf"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E901/@E90101/@E90101.HTM"> Housing Starts (000s, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col"> Sept</th>
<th scope="col"> Aug</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>1,898</td>
<td>2,020</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>1,853</td>
<td>1,710</td>
<td>1,601</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Single-family</td>
<td>1,540</td>
<td>1,678</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>1,505</td>
<td>1,363</td>
<td>1,272</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Multi-family</td>
<td>358</td>
<td>342</td>
<td>-7.0%</td>
<td>348</td>
<td>347</td>
<td>330</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Building Permits</td>
<td>2,005</td>
<td>1,969</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>1,889</td>
<td>1,749</td>
<td>1,637</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Housing Market Index Recovered 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> October 19, 2004


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041019a.jpg" width="353">
The Composite Housing Market Index from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) recovered in October from the prior month&#39;s decline to 72, the highest level in a year.
The NAHB index is a diffusion index based on a survey of builders. Readings above 50 signal that more builders view conditions as good than poor.
The index of current single family home sales also surged to its highest in a year and the index of expected sales in six months jumped the highest level since 1999.
The index of traffic of prospective buyers rose to 54 and that was above the year to date average.
Visit the National Association of Home Builders using this <a href="http://www.nahb.org">link</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S4/@S4.HTM"> Nat&#39;l Association of Home Builders</a></th>
<th scope="col"> Oct</th>
<th scope="col">Sept</th>
<th scope="col"> Oct &#39;03</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Housing Market Index</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>56</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Chain Store Sales Slipped 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> October 19, 2004


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041019b.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales slipped 0.2% last week after two weeks of respectable gain, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS.
The decline dropped sales so far in October 0.1% below the September average which, battered by Hurricanes, fell 0.7% versusAugust.
During the last ten years there has been a 60% correlation between y/y change in chain store sales and the change in non-auto retail sales less gasoline.
The ICSC-UBS retail chain-store sales index is constructed using the same-store sales reported by 78 stores of seven retailers: Dayton Hudson, Federated, Kmart, May, J.C. Penney, Sears and Wal-Mart. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"> <a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM"> ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">10/16/04</th>
<th scope="col">10/09/04</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col"> 2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Retail Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>436.4</td>
<td>437.3</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041018d.jpg" width="353">
The improvement in economic activity in Japan is beginning to be seen in employment. Regular employment in all firms with 30 or more employees dipped slightly in August from July, but it was 0.21% over August of a year ago and was the fifth month to show a year over year increase. While employment in all industries excluding services has fared worse than the service sector, employment in these industries has also shown improvement in that the year over year percent changes are becoming less negative. The first chart shows the year over year percent changes in employment of firms with 30 or more employees in all industries and in all industries excluding services.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/041018c.jpg" width="353">
While employment shows a slightly improving trend, wages show no clear trend as can be seen in the second chart that shows the year over year changes in the nominal cash earnings of employees in those same firms that employ 30 or more employees.
Rising employment bodes well for household income, but the lackluster wage trend suggest caution in interpreting the labor statistics.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Index of Regular Employees in Firms with 30 or more employees (2000=100)</th>
<th scope="col">Aug 04</th>
<th scope="col">Aug 04 Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">Jul 04 Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">Jun 04 Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">May 04 Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 04 Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2003&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;2002&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp; 2001&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">All surveyed industries</td>
<td>96.8</td>
<td>0.21</td>
<td>0.31</td>
<td>0.21</td>
<td>0.21</td>
<td>0.21</td>
<td>96.3</td>
<td>97.6</td>
<td>99.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">All surveyed industries ex services</td>
<td>91.4</td>
<td>-0.87</td>
<td>-0.97</td>
<td>-0.97</td>
<td>-0.97</td>
<td>-1.08</td>
<td>92.2</td>
<td>94.6</td>
<td>97.5</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></td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Index of Cash Earning-All surveyed industries (2000=100)</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Real (SA)</td>
<td>96.7</td>
<td>&nbsp;0.94</td>
<td>-0.75</td>
<td>-2.94</td>
<td>-0.20</td>
<td>1.21</td>
<td>98.7</td>
<td>98.7</td>
<td>100.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Real (NSA)</td>
<td>82.1</td>
<td>0.86</td>
<td>-0.78</td>
<td>-3.00</td>
<td>0.25</td>
<td>1.26</td>
<td>98.7</td>
<td>98.7</td>
<td>100.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nominal (NSA)</td>
<td>80.1</td>
<td>0.63</td>
<td>-0.97</td>
<td>-3.00</td>
<td>-0.26</td>
<td>0.64</td>
<td>96.3</td>
<td>96.4</td>
<td>99.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The improvement in economic activity in Japan is beginning to be seen in employment. Regular employment in all firms with 30 or more employees dipped slightly in August from July, but it was 0.21% over August of a year ago and was the [...]

Employment in Japan Beginning to Show Improvement: Wage Growth Still Erratic

USD/EUR exchange rate uncoupling from interest rate differential

Widespread downgrading of 2025 GDP outlook

Trade and fiscal policy uncertainty has exploded with the new administration

Much lower US electricity costs gives it a competitive advantage

Wage growth slowing in the US and Euro area; elevated and sticky in the UK

Stagflation-lite: Blue Chip forecasts below-trend growth and elevated inflation

US policy gyrations boosting policy uncertainty worldwide

Expected tariff hikes have boosted inflation expectations

US and Japan ended 2024 on solid ground in contrast to Europe

US economy expected to outperform other major economies in 2025

Only modest evidence of AI-related surge in US productivity growth

Previous Trump tariffs fading. A boost from new tariffs ahead?

Heavy US manufacturing states underperforming while Sun Belt states outperforming

Rising long-term yields a global phenomenon

US financial market concerns shifting from growth to inflation

Economic activity is picking up in the US but remains lackluster abroad

Policy uncertainty has surged since the US national elections.

Recent turnaround in US economic surprises leading to increases in rate-cut expectations

The outlook has brightened in the US, while it has dimmed for other major economies

Headline US PCE inflation elevated by sticky services prices

US and global equity prices have recently diverged

US leading global upturn in economic surprises

Blue Chip forecasters look for further significant monetary easing apart from Japan

Recent rise in global supply chain pressures could augur a pickup in global inflation pressures

Underperforming German economy generating increased policy uncertainty relative to Europe and the US

Our global data offering is unparalleled in terms of coverage, quality, and organization. We offer 290+ databases from 2500 government and private sources, a wealth of key survey and forecast data covering the world’s economies, and a robust offering of archive databases that drive machine learning for big data applications.

Optimized for precision analytics, our data is seamlessly integrated with Microsoft Office and all leading statistical packages through our DLX® software and platform independent HaverView™ website. We further offer direct database feeds, client server or cloud-based delivery, and RESTful API.


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

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

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Andrew Cates

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

250501Z1.jpg

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

250501Z2.jpg

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

250501Z3.jpg

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

250501Z4.jpg

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

250501Z5.jpg

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

250501Z6.jpg

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

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

Charts of the Week: Tariff Truce, Tenuous Trust

250501F20.jpg

250501G20.jpg

U.S. light vehicle sales dropped 2.9% (+6.5% y/y) to 17.31 million units (SAAR) in April after surging 10.8% to 17.82 million units in March. The retreat in April vehicle sales accompanied a 1.7% y/y rise in real disposable income through March, which compared to 2.0% growth last year.

Sales declines were broad-based last month. Light truck sales fell 1.3% (+9.9% y/y) during April to 14.34 million units (SAAR), after rising 12.4% in March. Purchases of domestically-made light trucks declined 1.2% (+11.9% y/y) to 11.02 million units, after jumping 12.5% in March. Sales of imported light trucks fell 1.8% (+4.4% y/y) to 3.32 million units, following an 11.6% March surge.

Trucks’ record 82.8% share of the light vehicle market last month compared to 81.5% in March and 80.3% in April of last year. The share averaged 80.3% during all of 2024 versus 53.3% ten years earlier.

Auto sales also declined last month, down 9.5% (-7.5%) to 2.97 million units (SAAR) following a 3.5% March rise. The decline reversed all of the increase over the prior two months. Purchases of domestically-produced cars fell 9.8% (-4.3% y/y) last month to 2.22 million units, after rising 3.8% in March. Sales of imported autos declined 9.6% (-15.7% y/y) to 0.75 million units, following a 2.5% March increase.

Imports' 23.5% share of the U.S. light vehicle market was little changed from 23.6% in March and compared to a May 2023 low of 22.9% and a high of 26.3% in November of 2023. Imports' share of the passenger car market held steady at 25.3% last month and compared to 27.7% in April of last year. It reached a high of 38.7% in September 2021. Imports' share of the light truck market eased to 23.2% last month after falling to 23.3% in March.

U.S. vehicle sales figures can be found in Haver's **USECON** database. Additional detail by manufacturer is in the I**NDUSTRY** database.

250501H20.jpg

250501I20.jpg

- Light truck sales pull back, while auto sales tumble.
- Both domestic and imported sales decline.
- Imports' market share slips further.

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Fall in April

250501J5.jpg

250501K5.jpg

The ISM Purchasing Managers Index of activity in the manufacturing sector slipped to 48.7 in April from 49.0 during March and 50.3 in February. It remained up from a low of 46.9 in October of last year. A level of 50 is the break-even point between a rising and falling level of activity. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected a reading of 47.8 for April. The series reached a monthly high of 63.8 in March 2021.

Two of the five component indexes weakened last month. The April production index fell to 44.0 after declining to 48.3 in March. It was the lowest level since May 2020. A lessened 19.8% (NSA) of respondents reported higher production while an increased 24.2% reported lower output. The inventories index declined to 50.8 last month from 53.4 in March. The index remained up from a low of 43.2 in October of last year.

Moving higher, the new orders index rose to 47.2 last month from 45.2 in March. The index remained below a January high of 55.1. Twenty-eight percent (NSA) of respondents reported higher new orders while 26.7% reported a decline. The employment index rose to 46.5 from 44.7 in March. It was below a high of 50.3 in January. A greater 13.1% (NSA) of respondents reported more hiring while a fewer 16.2% indicated less. The supplier delivery index rose to 55.2 from 53.5 in March. A higher 16.6% (NSA) of respondents reported slower delivery speeds while a fairly steady 6.2% reported a quickening.

The prices index, which is not part of the composite series, edged up to 69.8 (NSA) in April after increasing to 69.4 in March. It was the highest level since June 2022, up from a December 2022 low of 39.4. An increased 49.2% of respondents reported higher prices last month, up from 12.2% in November, while a higher 9.7% reported lower prices.

In other series, the export orders index plummeted to 43.1 in April from 49.6 during March. It was down from the high of 52.4 in January. The imports index fell sharply to 47.1 from 50.1 in March. It was the lowest reading since December 2023. The order backlog index dropped to 43.7 (NSA) last month from 44.5 in March. It was the lowest level in five months.

The ISM figures are based on responses from over 400 purchasing executives from 18 industries, which are weighted according to each industry’s contribution to GDP. These indexes are diffusion indexes where a reading above 50 indicates expansion and a reading below 50 points to contraction. 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.

250501L5.jpg

250501M5.jpg

- Declines in last three months follow earlier improvement.
- Production & inventories account for m/m shortfall.
- Prices index edges up to another three-year high.

U.S. ISM Manufacturing Index Indicates Contraction in April

Winnie Tapasanun

250501N.jpg

250501O.jpg

The value of construction put in place unexpectedly fell 0.5% m/m in March after rises of 0.6% in February (+0.7% initially) and 0.1% in January (-0.5% previously), data from the U.S. Census Bureau showed. The March reading was the first m/m fall following five straight m/m gains. A 0.3% m/m March rise had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The year-on-year rate of increase decelerated to 2.8% in March, the lowest since May 2019, after registering at 3.4% in February and January. The latest y/y figure was lower than 8.7% in March 2024; thus, having remained below its recent high of 9.8% in January 2024 and a peak of 18.6% in April 2022.

Private construction slid 0.6% (+2.3% y/y) in March, down for the first time since September, following increases of 0.7% in February (+0.9% initially) and 0.1% in January (-0.7% previously). Residential private construction fell 0.4% (+2.8% y/y) in March, the first m/m fall in six months, after an unrevised 1.3% gain in February. Home improvement building dropped 1.2% (+13.4% y/y), the first m/m decline since December, following a 2.3% February gain; it was 41.1% of the residential private construction. Single-family building edged up 0.1% (-0.8% y/y), the smallest of seven consecutive m/m increases, after a 0.8% February rise; it was 46.6% of the residential private construction. Meanwhile, multi-family building was essentially unchanged m/m (-12.1% y/y) in March following 15 straight m/m decreases; it was 12.3% of the residential private construction.

Nonresidential private construction fell 0.8% (+1.6% y/y) in March after a 0.1% increase in February (+0.4% initially) and a 0.1% easing in January (-0.2% previously). The March fall reflected m/m drops in the following nonresidential private constructions. These included religious (-2.9%; +16.4% y/y), health care (-2.2%; -5.2% y/y), office (-1.8%; +2.7% y/y), educational (-1.7%; -4.2% y/y), lodging (-1.6%; -1.0% y/y), commercial (-1.0%; -5.8% y/y), manufacturing (-0.4%; +3.6% y/y), communication (-0.3%; +2.2% y/y), and utilities (-0.1%; +7.0% y/y). In contrast, private constructions for amusement & recreation (1.5%; 7.0% y/y) and transportation (0.7%; 10.2% y/y) rose m/m in March.

The value of public construction declined 0.2% (+4.7% y/y) in March after holding steady in February (+0.2% initially), reflecting a 0.2% increase (-1.9% y/y) in residential public construction and a 0.2% easing (+4.8% y/y) in nonresidential public construction. The March decline reflected m/m drops in the following nonresidential public constructions. These included utilities (-4.8%; -12.8% y/y), commercial (-1.6%; +40.3% y/y), amusement & recreation (-1.0%; +19.1% y/y), educational (-0.6%; +7.6% y/y), sewage & waste disposal (-0.6%; +10.6% y/y), and health care (-0.4%; +13.0% y/y). Notably, spending on highways & streets, which made up 28.7% of public construction spending, fell 0.5% (-2.4% y/y) in March, the first m/m fall since October, following a 0.9% increase in February. To the upside, the following public constructions rose m/m in March: office (1.6%; 6.0% y/y), transportation (1.4%; 7.3% y/y), public safety (0.7%; 4.1% y/y), conservation & development (0.6%; 4.7% y/y), and water supply (0.6%; 12.2% y/y).

The construction figures can be found in Haver's **USECON** database. The expectations figure is from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in **AS1REPNA**.

250501P.jpg

250501Q.jpg

- March construction spending -0.5% m/m; +2.8% y/y, the lowest y/y rate since May ’19.
- Residential private construction -0.4% m/m, led by a 1.2% drop in home improvement building.
- Nonresidential private construction -0.8% m/m, down for the second month in three.
- Public sector construction -0.2% m/m, reflecting a 0.2% decline in nonresidential public building.

U.S. Construction Spending Unexpectedly Drops in March, the First M/M Fall Since September

Carol Stone, CBE

250501A8.jpg

250501B8.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose 18,000 in the week ended April 26 to 241,000, seasonally adjusted.  This is higher by 16,000 than the Action Economics Forecast Survey amount of 225,000 and is the largest amount since the week of February 22. The previous week’s actual count was revised up by 1,000 to 223,000, from 222,000 reported initially.

The total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries – also known as “continuing claims” – in the week ended April 19 was 1.916 million, up 83,000 from the prior week’s 1.833 million; that earlier amount was revised down by 8,000.

The insured unemployment rate, that is, the number of beneficiaries as a percentage of covered employment, was 1.3% in the April 19 week, following 1.2% continuously since the week of January 6, 2024.

Economic conditions vary widely across states and territories.  In the week ended April 12, the highest unemployment rates were in New Jersey (2.39%), California (2.24%), Washington (2.19%), Rhode Island (2.17%) and Massachusetts (1.93%).  The lowest rates were in Florida (0.35%), South Dakota (0.40%), Alabama (0.41%), Virginia (0.45%) and Tennessee (0.48%).  Rates in other notable states include the Illinois (1.85%), New York (1.71%), Pennsylvania (1.54%) and Texas (1.09%). 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 U**SECON**. 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.

250501C8.jpg

250501D8.jpg

- Actual initial claims amount is 16,000 more than forecast.
- Total beneficiaries rose by 83,000.
- Insured unemployment rate ticked up to 1.3% after 15 months at 1.2%.

Economy in Brief: October 2004

Jump to:

Mortgage Applications Rebounded

September Industrial Production in Poland Up Strongly: Increases in Production in the New European Union Member [...]

U.S. Chain Store Sales Slipped

Housing Market Index Recovered

Housing Starts Down More Than Expected

Consumer Prices Rose Moderately: Used Car Prices Firm

Consumer Prices Rose Moderately: Used Car Prices Firm

Employment in Japan Beginning to Show Improvement: Wage Growth Still Erratic