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/050519c.jpg" width="353">
The Composite Index of Leading Economic Indicators reported by the Conference Board fell for the fourth straight month in April. The 0.2% decline followed a downwardly revised 0.6% drop in March. Six-month growth in the leaders fell further to -1.0%. Growth in the leaders deeper than -2.5% preceded past US recessions.
During the last ten years there has been a 50% correlation between the six-month change in the leading indicators and the change in real GDP.
The breadth of one month gain amongst the 10 components of the leading index improved markedly to 50% from just 10% in March. Higher building permits and lower claims for unemployment insurance offset negative contributions from stock prices, the yield curve and the money supply.
The leading index is based on eight previously reported economic data series. Two series, orders for consumer goods and orders for capital goods, are estimated.
The coincident indicators rose 0.2% for the second month. Six-month growth in the index was 2.5% and during the last ten years there has been an 84% correlation between six month growth in the coincident indicators and two quarter growth in real GDP.
The lagging indicators rose 0.4% mostly due to higher C&amp;I loans.
The ratio of the coincident to the lagging indicators which measures actual economic performance relative to excess fell for the third month this year.
Visit the Conference Board&#39;s <a href="http://www.conference-board.org">site</a> for coverage of leading indicator series from around the world.
New Economy-New Policy Rules? from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is available <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/01/09/0109jb.pdf"> 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/BCI/BCI.HTM">Business Cycle Indicators</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">6-Month Chg</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Leading</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Coincident</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Lagging</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
<td>-1.9%</td>
<td>-2.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Chicago Fed Nat'l Activity Index: Economic Growth Near Trend 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> May 19, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050519b.jpg" width="353">
In April the National Activity Index (CFNAI) compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago improved to 0.10 from a downwardly revised -0.04 in March.
The figures left the three-month moving average of the CFNAI at 0.08, its lowest since 2003. A zero value of the CFNAI indicates that the economy is expanding at its historical trend rate of growth.
The CFNAI is a weighted average of 85 indicators of economic activity. The indicators reflect activity in the following categories: production and income, the labor market, personal consumption and housing, manufacturing and trade sales, and inventories &amp; orders.
During the last twenty years there has been a 74% correlation between the level of the CFNAI and q/q growth in real GDP.
The latest CFNAI report is available <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/economic_research_and_data/files/cfnai_may2005.pdf">here</a>.
M2 and &quot;Reigniting Inflation&quot; from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis can be found <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/mt/20050601/cover.pdf"> 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/SURVEYS/@S5/@S503/@S503.HTM">Chicago Fed</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">April &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">CFNAI</td>
<td>0.10</td>
<td>-0.04</td>
<td>0.47</td>
<td>0.39</td>
<td>-0.11</td>
<td>-0.40</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Initial Claims for Jobless Insurance Lower 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> May 19, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050519a.jpg" width="353">
Following three weeks of increase, initial claims for unemployment insurance fell 20,000 last week to 321,000 and the prior period&#39;s gain was little revised. Consensus expectations had been for 330,000 claims.
The latest figure covers the survey period for May nonfarm payrolls and claims are up 22,000 (7.4%) from the April period.
During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 75% correlation between the level of initial claims for unemployment insurance and the monthly change in payroll employment. There has been a (negative) 65% correlation with the level of continuing claims.
The four week moving average of initial claims rose to 329,750 (-2.6% y/y).
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance rose 5,000 and the prior week&#39;s gain was little revised.
The insured unemployment rate held at 2.0% for the fourth consecutive weeks.
This morning&#39;s speech titled Government-sponsored enterprises by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/Speeches/2005/20050519/default.htm"> 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/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">05/14/05</th>
<th scope="col">05/07/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>321</td>
<td>341</td>
<td>-8.0%</td>
<td>343</td>
<td>402</td>
<td>404</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>2,601</td>
<td>-11.7%</td>
<td>2,926</td>
<td>3,531</td>
<td>3,570</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Employment Gains in Germany, Denmark; Decline in Netherlands Is Moderating 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> May 19, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050519d.jpg" width="353">
Employment conditions in several countries are showing some improvement. After about three years of decline or sluggishness, uptrends are developing in the number of people employed. This is evident in Germany, where seasonally adjusted employment rose 38,000 in Q1, extending the recent string of gains to a fifth quarter. At 39.965 million, the level is the highest since the third quarter of 2002. Before seasonal adjustment, the figure is 39.579 million, up 0.5% from a year ago.
In Denmark, the lack of seasonal adjustment makes the comparisons less obvious, but gains are there, nonetheless. At 2.698 million in Q1, jobs are up 0.7% from a year ago and achieved the highest Q1 total since 1999. As seen in the first graph, the 4-quarter moving average has been rising since Q1 2004.
In both of these countries, it is the service sector where turnarounds are evolving. In Germany, this segment, represented by total employment less agriculture, industry and construction, was up in Q1 by 356,000 from a year ago, growth of 1.3%. Industry employment is still decreasing, down 1.2% in the same time span. This is, however, a slower pace of decline than was experienced from the beginning of 2002 to the middle of last year. Quarterly patterns are more erratic in Denmark, but recent 4-quarter growth rates in service industries have also averaged 1.3%. Industry employment is still weak, but looks to be trying to bottom out, maintaining a tight range around 440,000 for the last year.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050519e.jpg" width="353">
Finally, in the Netherlands, total employment hit a new cyclical low of 7.001 million (seasonally adjusted) in February, but rebounded to 7.024 million in March. These data are expressed as three-month centered moving averages, so the good rise reported for March (average of February, March and April) suggests that the April figure alone probably had a more significant increase. As it stands, before seasonal adjustment, the March level is just barely below March 2004, the least weak reading since August 2003.

<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/INDUSTRIALDETAIL.HTM">Industrial Countries</a> Not Seasonally Adjusted</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Year Ago</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany-Total Employment </td>
<td>38579*</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>38376*</td>
<td>38861</td>
<td>38720</td>
<td>39092</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Industry </td>
<td>7910*</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>8009*</td>
<td>8018</td>
<td>8139</td>
<td>8356</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Services</td>
<td>27743*</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>27387*</td>
<td>27708</td>
<td>27379</td>
<td>27392</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Netherlands - Employment </td>
<td>7024</td>
<td>7001</td>
<td>7033</td>
<td>7036</td>
<td>7113</td>
<td>7123</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Denmark - Employment </td>
<td>2698*</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>2680*</td>
<td>2720</td>
<td>2693</td>
<td>2712</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Composite Index of Leading Economic Indicators reported by the Conference Board fell for the fourth straight month in April. The 0.2% decline followed a downwardly revised 0.6% drop in March. Six-month growth in the leaders fell [...]

Leading Indicators Down Again

Carol Stone, CBE

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050518c.jpg" width="353">
Perhaps it goes without saying that energy production is a major part of the Norwegian economy. But balance of trade data, which were reported today for April, underscore that fact dramatically. The total balance of trade is seen to be a surplus of NKr27.6 billion in April, up from March&#39;s NKr25.9 billion and a monthly average of NKr20.1 billion. The petroleum sector more than accounts for the surplus, as apart from it, the trade accounts run deficits, the latest at NKr7.3 billion. The energy sector exports were NKr22.0 billion in April, a little more than 61% of total exports.
&quot;Energy sector&quot; is a term we apply to the Central Statistics Bureau&#39;s listing of &quot;crude oil, natural gas, ships and oil platforms&quot;. Norway is unusual among oil exporting nations in also constructing the transportation equipment and the water-borne drilling rigs. In April, these exports were a mere NKr28 million, but when even a single rig or ship is delivered, these exports can spike to NKr2 or 3 billion.
The price of energy, of course, also plays a major role in the reported amount of energy-related exports and thence the overall trade surplus. In the second chart, the close comparison is readily apparent. There, we used the balance of trade converted to US$, plotted with the price of Brent crude. The correlation is a very tight 91%. The correlation with the balance expressed in Kroner is still 84%.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050518d.jpg" width="353">
Data for Norway are included in Haver&#39;s &quot;NORDIC&quot; and &quot;G10&quot; databases. Conversions to US dollars and some seasonal adjustment is performed in the series contained in G10/Norway.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/NORDIC/@NN/@NN.HTM">Norway</a> Millions NKr</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 2004</th>
Monthly Averages
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
<td>2002</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Trade Balance </td>
<td>27,605</td>
<td>25,943</td>
<td>20,326</td>
<td>20,133</td>
<td>16,639</td>
<td>16,377</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Energy Sector*</td>
<td>-7,264</td>
<td>-6,632</td>
<td>-6,771</td>
<td>-7,876</td>
<td>-6,314</td>
<td>-5,751</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Exports</td>
<td>57,081</td>
<td>54,166</td>
<td>44,956</td>
<td>47,298</td>
<td>40,245</td>
<td>39,413</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Energy Sector*</td>
<td>22,045</td>
<td>21,433</td>
<td>17,816</td>
<td>18,809</td>
<td>16,800</td>
<td>16,663</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Kroner/US$</td>
<td>6.3199</td>
<td>6.1972</td>
<td>6.9242</td>
<td>6.7412</td>
<td>7.0800</td>
<td>7.9839</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Perhaps it goes without saying that energy production is a major part of the Norwegian economy. But balance of trade data, which were reported today for April, underscore that fact dramatically. The total balance of trade is seen to [...]

Huge Role for Oil & Equipment in Norway Trade

<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/050518b.jpg" width="353">
Total mortgage applications dropped 10.5% last week and reversed more than all of the prior week&#39;s increase according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. Nevertheless, applications so far in May are 8.0% ahead of the April average.
Applications to purchase a home slumped 10.8% w/w but in May are 5.8% ahead of April. During the last ten years there has been a 50% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing single family home sales.
Applications to refinance fell 10.0% w/w but are 11.0% higher than in April.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage fell back below 6.0% to 5.97%. The effective rate on a 15-year mortgage was 5.59%.
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>.
Credit Risk Management Guidance for Home Equity Lending from the Federal Reserve Board and other agencies is available <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/bcreg/2005/20050516/default.htm"> 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">05/13/05</th>
<th scope="col">05/06/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>699.2</td>
<td>781.0</td>
<td>6.9%</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
<td>799.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>469.3</td>
<td>526.2</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
<td>354.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>2,036.7</td>
<td>2,263.3</td>
<td>12.1%</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
<td>3,388.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Total mortgage applications dropped 10.5% last week and reversed more than all of the prior week's increase according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. Nevertheless, applications so far in May are 8.0% ahead of the April average. [...]

Mortgage Applications Dropped

<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/050518a.jpg" width="353">
The CPI-U rose 0.6% in April due to a 4.5% jump in energy prices. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% rise in the total.Food prices also were strong posting a 0.7% advance, the strongest in nearly a year. Over the first four months of 2005 the CPI rose 4.8% at an annual rate.
Prices less food &amp; energy were unchanged last month, the first unchanged monthly reading since 2003. During the first four months of this year the core CPI rose 2.6% at an annual rate. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.2% increase in April.
Core goods prices fell for the first month since last August. Apparel prices reversed much of the prior month&#39;s strength with a 0.6% decline (-0.5% y/y). Home furnishings &amp; operation prices were unchanged for the second consecutive month due to a 1.5% (-0.8% y/y) drop in prices of window &amp; wall coverings. Appliance prices (-0.1% y/y) and furniture prices (-0.6% y/y) also are down year to year. New &amp; used motor vehicle prices were unchanged (+1.6% y/y).
Services price inflation eased. Less energy, the 0.2% increase was the weakest since January. Shelter prices were unchanged (2.7% y/y) following a 0.6% pop in March while the gain in medical care services prices halved to 0.3% (5.0% y/y). Public transportation prices were strong for the second consecutive month, up 1.7% (1.7% y/y), and school tuition rose another 0.6% (6.5% y/y).
Energy prices added to the prior month&#39;s increase. The 4.5% increase was pumped by a 6.4% (24.3% y/y) rise in gasoline prices, a 4.8% (33.4% y/y) jump in fuel oil prices and a 2.3% (8.1% y/y) surge natural gas &amp; electricity prices. In May gasoline prices have fallen to an average $2.20 per gallon ($2.16 in the latest week) versus $2.24 averaged in April.
Food prices jumped 0.7% due to a 3.4% (5.2% y/y) recovery in fruit &amp; vegetable prices following four months of decline. Beverage prices also were strong for the second month, up 1.1% (3.6% y/y) and prices of meat, poultry &amp; fish prices doubled the 0.2% March increase (3.1% y/y).
The chained CPI which adjusts for shifts in the mix of consumer purchases rose 0.5%. Core chain prices eased, however, to 0.2%.
A Walk Around the World Economy, remarks by Richard W. Fisher, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas are available <a href="http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/fs050510.html"> 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/@E8/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM">Consumer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total&nbsp;</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Services less Energy</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Energy</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>16.9%</td>
<td>10.9%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
<td>-5.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Food</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</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>0.5%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The CPI-U rose 0.6% in April due to a 4.5% jump in energy prices. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% rise in the total.Food prices also were strong posting a 0.7% advance, the strongest in nearly a year. Over the first four [...]

Consumer Price Inflation Again Raised By Energy

<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/050518a.jpg" width="353">
The CPI-U rose 0.6% in April due to a 4.5% jump in energy prices. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% rise in the total.Food prices also were strong posting a 0.7% advance, the strongest in nearly a year. Over the first four months of 2005 the CPI rose 4.8% at an annual rate.
Prices less food &amp; energy were unchanged last month, the first unchanged monthly reading since 2003. During the first four months of this year the core CPI rose 2.6% at an annual rate. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.2% increase in April.
Core goods prices fell for the first month since last August. Apparel prices reversed much of the prior month&#39;s strength with a 0.6% decline (-0.5% y/y). Home furnishings &amp; operation prices were unchanged for the second consecutive month due to a 1.5% (-0.8% y/y) drop in prices of window &amp; wall coverings. Appliance prices (-0.1% y/y) and furniture prices (-0.6% y/y) also are down year to year. New &amp; used motor vehicle prices were unchanged (+1.6% y/y).
Services price inflation eased. Less energy, the 0.2% increase was the weakest since January. Shelter prices were unchanged (2.7% y/y) following a 0.6% pop in March while the gain in medical care services prices halved to 0.3% (5.0% y/y). Public transportation prices were strong for the second consecutive month, up 1.7% (1.7% y/y), and school tuition rose another 0.6% (6.5% y/y).
Energy prices added to the prior month&#39;s increase. The 4.5% increase was pumped by a 6.4% (24.3% y/y) rise in gasoline prices, a 4.8% (33.4% y/y) jump in fuel oil prices and a 2.3% (8.1% y/y) surge natural gas &amp; electricity prices. In May gasoline prices have fallen to an average $2.20 per gallon ($2.16 in the latest week) versus $2.24 averaged in April.
Food prices jumped 0.7% due to a 3.4% (5.2% y/y) recovery in fruit &amp; vegetable prices following four months of decline. Beverage prices also were strong for the second month, up 1.1% (3.6% y/y) and prices of meat, poultry &amp; fish prices doubled the 0.2% March increase (3.1% y/y).
The chained CPI which adjusts for shifts in the mix of consumer purchases rose 0.5%. Core chain prices eased, however, to 0.2%.
A Walk Around the World Economy, remarks by Richard W. Fisher, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas are available <a href="http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/fs050510.html"> 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/@E8/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM">Consumer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total&nbsp;</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Services less Energy</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Energy</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>16.9%</td>
<td>10.9%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
<td>-5.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Food</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</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>0.5%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Mortgage Applications Dropped 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> May 18, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050518b.jpg" width="353">
Total mortgage applications dropped 10.5% last week and reversed more than all of the prior week&#39;s increase according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. Nevertheless, applications so far in May are 8.0% ahead of the April average.
Applications to purchase a home slumped 10.8% w/w but in May are 5.8% ahead of April. During the last ten years there has been a 50% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing single family home sales.
Applications to refinance fell 10.0% w/w but are 11.0% higher than in April.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage fell back below 6.0% to 5.97%. The effective rate on a 15-year mortgage was 5.59%.
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>.
Credit Risk Management Guidance for Home Equity Lending from the Federal Reserve Board and other agencies is available <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/bcreg/2005/20050516/default.htm"> 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">05/13/05</th>
<th scope="col">05/06/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>699.2</td>
<td>781.0</td>
<td>6.9%</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
<td>799.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>469.3</td>
<td>526.2</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
<td>354.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>2,036.7</td>
<td>2,263.3</td>
<td>12.1%</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
<td>3,388.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Huge Role for Oil & Equipment in Norway Trade 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> May 18, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050518c.jpg" width="353">
Perhaps it goes without saying that energy production is a major part of the Norwegian economy. But balance of trade data, which were reported today for April, underscore that fact dramatically. The total balance of trade is seen to be a surplus of NKr27.6 billion in April, up from March&#39;s NKr25.9 billion and a monthly average of NKr20.1 billion. The petroleum sector more than accounts for the surplus, as apart from it, the trade accounts run deficits, the latest at NKr7.3 billion. The energy sector exports were NKr22.0 billion in April, a little more than 61% of total exports.
&quot;Energy sector&quot; is a term we apply to the Central Statistics Bureau&#39;s listing of &quot;crude oil, natural gas, ships and oil platforms&quot;. Norway is unusual among oil exporting nations in also constructing the transportation equipment and the water-borne drilling rigs. In April, these exports were a mere NKr28 million, but when even a single rig or ship is delivered, these exports can spike to NKr2 or 3 billion.
The price of energy, of course, also plays a major role in the reported amount of energy-related exports and thence the overall trade surplus. In the second chart, the close comparison is readily apparent. There, we used the balance of trade converted to US$, plotted with the price of Brent crude. The correlation is a very tight 91%. The correlation with the balance expressed in Kroner is still 84%.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050518d.jpg" width="353">
Data for Norway are included in Haver&#39;s &quot;NORDIC&quot; and &quot;G10&quot; databases. Conversions to US dollars and some seasonal adjustment is performed in the series contained in G10/Norway.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/NORDIC/@NN/@NN.HTM">Norway</a> Millions NKr</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 2004</th>
Monthly Averages
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
<td>2002</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Trade Balance </td>
<td>27,605</td>
<td>25,943</td>
<td>20,326</td>
<td>20,133</td>
<td>16,639</td>
<td>16,377</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Energy Sector*</td>
<td>-7,264</td>
<td>-6,632</td>
<td>-6,771</td>
<td>-7,876</td>
<td>-6,314</td>
<td>-5,751</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Exports</td>
<td>57,081</td>
<td>54,166</td>
<td>44,956</td>
<td>47,298</td>
<td>40,245</td>
<td>39,413</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Energy Sector*</td>
<td>22,045</td>
<td>21,433</td>
<td>17,816</td>
<td>18,809</td>
<td>16,800</td>
<td>16,663</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Kroner/US$</td>
<td>6.3199</td>
<td>6.1972</td>
<td>6.9242</td>
<td>6.7412</td>
<td>7.0800</td>
<td>7.9839</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

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/050517h.jpg" width="353">
The first quarter preliminary report for Japan&#39;s Real Gross Domestic Product released today was surprisingly good. GDP increased at annual rate of 5.3%. Last year also started out with a bang--a slightly larger increase, 5.6%-- but this was followed by declines of 0.83% and 1.04% in the second and third quarters and a minimal increase of 0.06% in the fourth quarter.
The composition of this year&#39;s first quarter increase is significantly different from that of last year&#39;s (See table below) and suggests that the outlook may be more promising. Although private inventory accumulation accounted for almost one-third of the increases in both years, there were encouraging shifts from the public to the private sector in the remaining two-thirds of the increase. Household consumption accounted for 49% of the total increase in 2005, up from 27.1% in 2004, while government consumption went from 17.2% to 10.1%. Private gross fixed investment accounted for 8.2% of the increase in the first quarter of 2005 in contrast to a negative impact of 26.6% in 2004, while public gross fixed investment dropped to 5.8% from a 33.3% contribution in 2004.
These increases in the private domestic sector&#39;s contribution to growth were all the more impressive in view of negative impact of the external sector. Net exports of goods and services were a drag on growth in 2005 of almost 6% whereas they contributed 19% to growth in 2004.
While the increase in activity in the private domestic sector is encouraging, deflation remains a stubborn problem. The non seasonally adjusted chain-linked GDP deflator in the first quarter of 2005 was 1.2% below the comparable figure of a year ago. There is, however, some evidence that prices at the wholesale level are beginning to move up and may eventually lead to price rises at the consumer level. Japan&#39;s Corporate Goods Price Index released yesterday, showed a year to year increase of 3.3% in April. The index has shown increases since May of 2004, the first sustained rise since the late nineties. The attached chart shows the year-to-year changes in this index together with the year-to-year changes in the chain linked GDP deflator.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Fourth to First Quarter Change&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2005 Bil. Yen</th>
<th scope="col">2004 Bil. Yen</th>
<th scope="col">2005 %</th>
<th scope="col">2004 %</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Household Consumption</td>
<td>3416.0</td>
<td>1958.2</td>
<td>49.2</td>
<td>27.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Government Consumption</td>
<td>699.9</td>
<td>1250.5</td>
<td>10.1</td>
<td>17.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Private Gross Fixed Invest.</td>
<td>51.2</td>
<td>-1.957.7</td>
<td>8.2</td>
<td>-26.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Public Gross Fixed Invest.</td>
<td>404.8</td>
<td>2432.1</td>
<td>5.8</td>
<td>33.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Private Inventory Change</td>
<td>2312.0</td>
<td>2207.6</td>
<td>33.3</td>
<td>30.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Public Inventory Change</td>
<td>-48.9</td>
<td>68.4</td>
<td>-0.7</td>
<td>0.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Net Exports of Goods and Services</td>
<td>-412.4</td>
<td>1389.0</td>
<td>-5.9</td>
<td>19.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total of Items Listed*</td>
<td>6942.6</td>
<td>7348.1</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Change in GDP</td>
<td>6950.2</td>
<td>7267.6</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The first quarter preliminary report for Japan's Real Gross Domestic Product released today was surprisingly good. GDP increased at annual rate of 5.3%. Last year also started out with a bang--a slightly larger increase, 5.6%-- but [...]

Japan's Real GDP Strong in First Quarter,2005: Deflation Still a Problem

<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/050517g.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales fell a sharp 1.0% last week following the 0.7% surge which opened the month of May, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey. Sales in May nevertheless remained 0.9% above the April average which rose 0.6% from March.
During the last ten years there has been a 56% correlation between the y/y change in chain store sales and the change in non-auto retail sales less gasoline, as published by the US Census Department. Chain store sales correspond directly with roughly 14% of non-auto retail sales less gasoline.
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC rose 0.4% (-0.1% y/y) in early May and reversed all of the prior week&#39;s decline.
The ICSC-UBS retail chain-store sales index is constructed using the same-store sales (stores open for one year) 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">05/14/05</th>
<th scope="col">05/07/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>456.7</td>
<td>461.4</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Chain store sales fell a sharp 1.0% last week following the 0.7% surge which opened the month of May, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey. Sales in May nevertheless remained 0.9% above the [...]

Weekly Chain Store Sales Fell

<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/050517f.jpg" width="353">
Industrial production fell 0.2% in April following a downwardly revised 0.1% increase in March. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.2% gain. Lower utility output accounted for all of the decline as it fell 2.3% (0.7% y/y) for the third decline this year.
Factory sector output recovered 0.1% (3.5% y/y) of a downwardly revised 0.3% decline in March. Excluding the high tech sector where output rose 1.8% (20.3% y/y) factory output fell for the second month, down 0.1% (+2.5% y/y). During 2004 factory output less high tech rose 3.9%.
Production of electrical equipment, appliances &amp; components rose 0.2% after a downwardly revised 1.0% March increase, but the y/y gain of 2.0% was well off the 6.2% pace of 2004. Machinery output also rose a firm 1.3% but here as well the y/y growth of 6.3% is about last year&#39;s increase.
Total capacity utilization slipped to 79.2% and capacity grew 1.2% y/y. Factory sector utilization also slipped to 77.9% and capacity rose 1.3% y/y.

<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/@EA/@EA.HTM">Production &amp; Capacity</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">March</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Industrial Production</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer Goods</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business Equipment</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>8.4%</td>
<td>9.5%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>-7.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capacity Utilization</td>
<td>79.2%</td>
<td>79.4%</td>
<td>77.7% (04/04)</td>
<td>78.1%</td>
<td>75.5%</td>
<td>75.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Industrial production fell 0.2% in April following a downwardly revised 0.1% increase in March. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.2% gain. Lower utility output accounted for all of the decline as it fell 2.3% (0.7% y/y) for the [...]

Industrial Production Fell

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

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: May 2005

Jump to:

Leading Indicators Down Again

Huge Role for Oil & Equipment in Norway Trade

Mortgage Applications Dropped

Consumer Price Inflation Again Raised By Energy

Consumer Price Inflation Again Raised By Energy

Japan's Real GDP Strong in First Quarter,2005: Deflation Still a Problem

Weekly Chain Store Sales Fell

Industrial Production Fell