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/060518b.jpg" width="353">
For April, the Conference Board&#39;s Composite Index of Leading Economic Indicators dipped 0.1% following a 0.4% March rise, initially reported as a 0.1% decline. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.1% April up tick.
Six month growth in the leaders fell to 2.9% from an upwardly revised 4.8% the prior month. During the last ten years there has been a 43% correlation between the six-month change in the leading indicators and quarterly growth in real GDP.
The breadth of one month gain amongst the 10 components of the leading index halved to 35% in April. Over a six month span 80% of the index components have risen. A large positive contribution from vendor performance was offset by lower building permits, lower consumer sentiment and a lower real money supply.Most of the remaining index components had little m/m impact on the change in the leaders.
The spread between yields on the 10 year Treasury Note and Fed funds made a minimal 0.02 percentage point positive contribution to the leaders. The method of calculating the contribution to the index from the interest rate yield spread has been revised. A negative contribution will now occur only when the spread inverts rather than when declining as in the past. More details can be found <a href="http://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/economics/bci/lei0705.pdf">here</a>.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060518c.jpg" width="353">
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 third consecutive month. All of the four component series rose last month and during the last six months. During the last ten years there has been a 64% correlation between the change in the coincident indicators and real GDP growth.
The lagging indicators increased 0.3% following a revised 0.1% March increase. Last month, 78.6% of the series&#39; components rose while the ratio of coincident to lagging indicators, a measure of actual economic performance versus excess, fell slightly.
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.
Today&#39;s speech titled Basel II: Its Promise and Its Challenges by Federal reserve Board Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is available <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2006/20060518/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/BCI/BCI.HTM">Business Cycle Indicators</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">6 Month Chg., AR</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Leading</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Coincident</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Lagging</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

For April, the Conference Board's Composite Index of Leading Economic Indicators dipped 0.1% following a 0.4% March rise, initially reported as a 0.1% decline. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.1% April up tick. Six month growth [...]

Leading Economic Indicators Dip, March Revised Up

<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/060518a.jpg" width="353">
Initial unemployment insurance claims surged 42,000 last week to 367,000 due to a partial government shutdown in Puerto Rico. The shutdown added 46,000 claims and has been resolved. Consensus expectations had been for 316,000 claims.
The Labor Department indicated that excluding claims related to the government shutdown in Puerto Rico seasonally adjusted initial claims would have been closer to 312,000.
The latest figure is for the survey period for May nonfarm payrolls and claims rose 63,000 (20.7%) from the April period. The payroll survey counts persons who were paid during the week which contains the 12th of the month as employed. During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 77% correlation between the level of initial claims and the m/m change in nonfarm payrolls.
Excluding strikers, claims rose 8,000 (2.6%) from the April survey period for nonfarm payrolls.
The four week moving average of initial claims rose to 333,250 (-0.1% y/y).
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance rose 8,000 following a revised 60,000 decline during the prior week.
The insured rate of unemployment remained at 1.8%.
Job Matching: Evidence from the Beveridge Curve from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is available <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2006/el2006-08.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/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">05/13/06</th>
<th scope="col">05/06/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>367</td>
<td>325</td>
<td>11.6%</td>
<td>332</td>
<td>343</td>
<td>403</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>2,389</td>
<td>-8.7%</td>
<td>2,663</td>
<td>2,923</td>
<td>3,530</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Initial unemployment insurance claims surged 42,000 last week to 367,000 due to a partial government shutdown in Puerto Rico. The shutdown added 46,000 claims and has been resolved. Consensus expectations had been for 316,000 claims. [...]

Initial Jobless Insurance Claims Surge

<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/060518a.jpg" width="353">
Initial unemployment insurance claims surged 42,000 last week to 367,000 due to a partial government shutdown in Puerto Rico. The shutdown added 46,000 claims and has been resolved. Consensus expectations had been for 316,000 claims.
The Labor Department indicated that excluding claims related to the government shutdown in Puerto Rico seasonally adjusted initial claims would have been closer to 312,000.
The latest figure is for the survey period for May nonfarm payrolls and claims rose 63,000 (20.7%) from the April period. The payroll survey counts persons who were paid during the week which contains the 12th of the month as employed. During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 77% correlation between the level of initial claims and the m/m change in nonfarm payrolls.
Excluding strikers, claims rose 8,000 (2.6%) from the April survey period for nonfarm payrolls.
The four week moving average of initial claims rose to 333,250 (-0.1% y/y).
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance rose 8,000 following a revised 60,000 decline during the prior week.
The insured rate of unemployment remained at 1.8%.
Job Matching: Evidence from the Beveridge Curve from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is available <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2006/el2006-08.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/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">05/13/06</th>
<th scope="col">05/06/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>367</td>
<td>325</td>
<td>11.6%</td>
<td>332</td>
<td>343</td>
<td>403</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>2,389</td>
<td>-8.7%</td>
<td>2,663</td>
<td>2,923</td>
<td>3,530</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Leading Economic Indicators Dip, March Revised Up 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> May 18, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060518b.jpg" width="353">
For April, the Conference Board&#39;s Composite Index of Leading Economic Indicators dipped 0.1% following a 0.4% March rise, initially reported as a 0.1% decline. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.1% April up tick.
Six month growth in the leaders fell to 2.9% from an upwardly revised 4.8% the prior month. During the last ten years there has been a 43% correlation between the six-month change in the leading indicators and quarterly growth in real GDP.
The breadth of one month gain amongst the 10 components of the leading index halved to 35% in April. Over a six month span 80% of the index components have risen. A large positive contribution from vendor performance was offset by lower building permits, lower consumer sentiment and a lower real money supply.Most of the remaining index components had little m/m impact on the change in the leaders.
The spread between yields on the 10 year Treasury Note and Fed funds made a minimal 0.02 percentage point positive contribution to the leaders. The method of calculating the contribution to the index from the interest rate yield spread has been revised. A negative contribution will now occur only when the spread inverts rather than when declining as in the past. More details can be found <a href="http://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/economics/bci/lei0705.pdf">here</a>.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060518c.jpg" width="353">
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 third consecutive month. All of the four component series rose last month and during the last six months. During the last ten years there has been a 64% correlation between the change in the coincident indicators and real GDP growth.
The lagging indicators increased 0.3% following a revised 0.1% March increase. Last month, 78.6% of the series&#39; components rose while the ratio of coincident to lagging indicators, a measure of actual economic performance versus excess, fell slightly.
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.
Today&#39;s speech titled Basel II: Its Promise and Its Challenges by Federal reserve Board Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is available <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2006/20060518/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/BCI/BCI.HTM">Business Cycle Indicators</a></th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">6 Month Chg., AR</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Leading</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Coincident</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Lagging</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Canada CPI: Up with Energy, But Restrained by Strong Currency 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> May 18, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060518d.jpg" width="353">
Yesterday, the report of US CPI for April set off a firestorm in financial markets as participants were hit with a bad case of inflation-itis. Today&#39;s Canadian CPI contained some of the same ingredients, but unlike the US&#39;s, Canada&#39;s &quot;core&quot; rate was actually weaker than expected. The total index was up just under 0.5% for the month, with the yearly rate ahead 2.4%, somewhat more than March&#39;s 2.2%. Dramatically, however, its &quot;core&quot; index was unchanged for the month and actually slowed on the year from 1.7% in March to 1.6%.
Canada&#39;s &quot;core&quot; inflation is defined by the Bank of Canada and is used directly as a monetary policy target. It excludes eight of the most volatile items, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, gasoline and mortgage interest rates. See the footnote beneath the table for the complete list.
Within the total index, energy prices played a major role in the monthly gain: all energy was up 6.9% (not seasonally adjusted), and separate data on actual retail gasoline prices show an increase of 13.7% to C$1.0675/liter, only the fourth month ever that the price has exceeded C$1.00/liter (the other three instances were just last year: August, September and October).<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060518e.jpg" width="353">
In discussing the surprising softness of the core measure, some press reports indicated a role for the Canadian dollar. It has strengthened noticeably against the US dollar, not just recently, but basically since the middle of 2002. It also moved up versus the euro from the middle of 2004 through the end of last year. So indeed, the strong currency could be helping Canadian inflation. We look at two components where imports have a significant influence, clothing and recreation. Clothing prices have been falling consistently and in April were 3% below a year earlier. By contrast in the US, the apparel category has declined much less over the last two years. Recreation is another Canadian sector with a trade component, as its residents travel south to Florida and other such destinations and residents of other areas come to Canada. The related prices in Canada are falling slowly, but their pattern changed distinctly soon after the the Canadian dollar turned upward. The chart shows &quot;traveler accommodation&quot; together with the US$ exchange rate; the two series have a remarkable 60% correlation since 1995.
All of Haver&#39;s Canadian monthly data are in CANSIM, an extensive collection of Statistics Canada&#39;s copyrighted series. Exchange rates can be found in USECON, DAILY, INTDAILY and the weekly counterparts of the latter two, as well as in CANSIM.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Canada CPI, % Changes*</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Year/ Year</th>
December/December
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2005</td>
<td>2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">All Items</td>
<td>0.46</td>
<td>0.31</td>
<td>-0.23</td>
<td>2.44</td>
<td>2.15</td>
<td>2.12</td>
<td>1.99</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">All Items less 8 Volatiles**</td>
<td>0.00</td>
<td>0.23</td>
<td>0.16</td>
<td>1.58</td>
<td>1.59</td>
<td>1.70</td>
<td>2.15</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Clothing</td>
<td>-0.50</td>
<td>-0.70</td>
<td>-0.69</td>
<td>-3.02</td>
<td>-0.93</td>
<td>-3.10</td>
<td>0.20</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Recreation, etc.</td>
<td>0.00</td>
<td>0.00</td>
<td>-0.16</td>
<td>-0.16</td>
<td>-0.24</td>
<td>0.32</td>
<td>0.40</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Memo: Can$/US$ Month Avg</td>
<td>1.1438</td>
<td>1.1574</td>
<td>1.1489</td>
<td>1.2397 (2/2005)</td>
<td colspan="3">December</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">1.1610</td>
<td>1.2191</td>
<td>1.3128</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

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/060517a.jpg" width="353">
Singapore&#39;s economy turned in a much better than expected performance in Q1, with its GDP up 6.8% annualized from Q4 and 10.6% from a year ago. Forecasts had called for a greater slowdown after the strong close to 2005 in Q4, when GDP was up 12.5% from Q3. The good gain prompted the Singapore government to raise its official forecast for the entire year from 4%-6% projected in February to 5%-7%.
On a year-over-year basis, both goods- and service-producing sectors participated in the good growth. Goods were led by manufacturing, which expanded by 20%. Press reports cited strength in electronic products, a sizable portion of manufacturing in Singapore. Also, among the industry &quot;cluster&quot; data compiled by the Singapore Economic Development Board, biomedical production and transport engineering were also very strong.
Value added in service industries gained 8.1% year-on-year, its best showing since Q2 2004. Wholesale and retail trade was a leader here, reflecting, according to the Department of Statistics, the movement of re-exports, which expanded 39.5% from a year ago in current prices.
Net exports were a leading source of demand, accounting for nearly 80% of the yearly GDP growth. Among domestic sectors, demand for machinery and equipment increased 19% from a year ago.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060517g.jpg" width="353"><img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060517h.jpg" width="353">

<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/EMERGEPR/@P4/@P42/@P42.HTM">Singapore</a></th>
<th scope="col">Q1 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 2005</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">GDP Qtr/Qtr</td>
<td>6.8</td>
<td>12.5</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>14.6</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Year/Year</td>
<td>10.6</td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td>7.6</td>
<td>5.7</td>
<td>6.4</td>
<td>9.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Goods Producing (Yr/Yr)</td>
<td>16.3</td>
<td>12.0</td>
<td>10.7</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>7.7</td>
<td>8.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Service Producing (Yr/Yr)</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>7.2</td>
<td>6.8</td>
<td>5.8</td>
<td>6.0</td>
<td>7.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Singapore's economy turned in a much better than expected performance in Q1, with its GDP up 6.8% annualized from Q4 and 10.6% from a year ago. Forecasts had called for a greater slowdown after the strong close to 2005 in Q4, when GDP [...]

Firm Q1 Growth in Singapore Prompts Hike in "Official" 2006 Forecast; Net Exports, Business Equipment Investment Lead

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060517c.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales were unchanged last week, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey, after a modest 0.4% decline to open the month. So far, sales in May are 0.3% ahead of the April average which rose 1.6% from March.
During the last ten years there has been a 47% correlation between the y/y change in chain store sales and the change in nonauto retail sales less gasoline.
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.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060517b.jpg" width="353">
Retail gasoline prices rose four cents last week to $2.95 per gallon, however, yesterday spot market gasoline prices dropped again and the NY price is off nearly a dime from last week.
The latest Short-Term Energy Outlook from the US Energy Information Administration is available <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html"> 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/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">05/13/06</th>
<th scope="col">05/06/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>475.7</td>
<td>475.9</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Chain store sales were unchanged last week, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey, after a modest 0.4% decline to open the month. So far, sales in May are 0.3% ahead of the April average which [...]

Chain Store Sales Unchanged. Gasoline Prices Jumped

<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/060517f.jpg" width="353">
Last week, the total number of mortgage applications recovered most of the prior week&#39;s decline with a 4.6% gain. The rise lifted the average level in May 0.3% above the April average.
Purchase applications rose 2.4% following a 3.9% w/w decline the prior week. As a result, purchase applications in May are 2.3% ahead of April which rose 1.1% versus March.
During the last ten years there has been a negative 80% correlation between the interest rate level on 30-year financing and purchase applications while during those years there has been a 54% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing single family home sales.
Applications to refinance recovered about all of the prior week&#39;s decline with an 8.4% rise. Nevertheless, the May level is 2.7% below the April average which fell 4.1% from March.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage jumped to 6.90% from 6.84% the prior week and the rate on 15-year financing increased to 6.55%. Rates have risen roughly 50 basis points since year end 2005. Interest rates on 15 and 30 year mortgages are closely correlated (&gt;90%) with the rate on 10 year Treasury securities and during the last ten years there has been a (negative) 82% correlation between purchase applications and the effective rate on a 30-Year mortgage.
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">05/12/06</th>
<th scope="col">05/05/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>588.0</td>
<td>562.1</td>
<td>-15.9%</td>
<td>708.6</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>426.7</td>
<td>416.5</td>
<td>-9.1%</td>
<td>470.9</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>1,546.8</td>
<td>1,427.4</td>
<td>-24.1%</td>
<td>2,092.3</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Last week, the total number of mortgage applications recovered most of the prior week's decline with a 4.6% gain. The rise lifted the average level in May 0.3% above the April average. Purchase applications rose 2.4% following a 3.9% [...]

Mortgage Applications 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/060517d.jpg" width="353">
The April consumer price index (CPI-U) rose 0.6%, the most for any month since a 0.7% rise in January and matched Consensus expectations. For the second month, however, a 0.3% rise in prices less food &amp; energy was firmer than expected.
An 8.8% m/m jump in gasoline prices (21.5% y/y) caused energy prices to spike 3.9% and in May gas prices have moved another 6.7% higher to an average $2.93 per gallon. Fuel oil prices also were strong last month and posted a 4.0% (18.6% y/y) gain while natural gas &amp; electricity prices fell 1.5% (+14.1% y/y) for the fourth decline in the last five months.
A 0.3% increase last month in core services prices provided additional lift to last month&#39;s rise in the &quot;core&quot; CPI. That reflected a 0.3% (2.9% y/y) rise in shelter prices as well as a 0.5% (6.0% y/y) gain in education expenses. Medical care services prices rose 0.3% (4.1% y/y), the smallest rise in three months and public transportation prices increased for the first month in the last three, by 0.2% (4.8% y/y).<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060517e.jpg" width="353">
Prices for core goods rose just 0.1% (0.4% y/y), further suggesting that the pass-through of higher energy prices has been limited. Apparel prices did jump 0.6% (-0.2% y/y) following a 1.0% March spike but window &amp; floor coverings prices fell 1.6% (-4.5% y/y) and household appliance prices rose a modest 0.1% (1.3% y/y). New &amp; used motor vehicle prices also rose a slim 0.1% (0.3% y/y) and tobacco prices fell 0.2% +4.2% y/y). Medical care commodity prices rose 0.4% (4.3% y/y).
Food prices were unchanged, an increase held back by a 0.7% (-0.5% y/y) decline in dairy products and another 0.1% decline (+2.6% y/y) drop in fruits &amp; vegetables prices. Meat, fish &amp; poultry prices rose 0.2% (0.5% y/y).
The chained CPI, which adjusts for shifts in the mix of consumer purchases, increased 0.6% and less food &amp; energy prices rose 0.3%, half the prior month&#39;s gain.
Gas-Price Inflation from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis can be found <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/mt/20060601/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/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM">Consumer Price Index</a> </th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total&nbsp;</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Services less Energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Energy</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>17.9%</td>
<td>16.9%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Food</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</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>0.6%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The April consumer price index (CPI-U) rose 0.6%, the most for any month since a 0.7% rise in January and matched Consensus expectations. For the second month, however, a 0.3% rise in prices less food & energy was firmer than [...]

CPI Up 0.6% Due To Energy & Services

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060517d.jpg" width="353">
The April consumer price index (CPI-U) rose 0.6%, the most for any month since a 0.7% rise in January and matched Consensus expectations. For the second month, however, a 0.3% rise in prices less food &amp; energy was firmer than expected.
An 8.8% m/m jump in gasoline prices (21.5% y/y) caused energy prices to spike 3.9% and in May gas prices have moved another 6.7% higher to an average $2.93 per gallon. Fuel oil prices also were strong last month and posted a 4.0% (18.6% y/y) gain while natural gas &amp; electricity prices fell 1.5% (+14.1% y/y) for the fourth decline in the last five months.
A 0.3% increase last month in core services prices provided additional lift to last month&#39;s rise in the &quot;core&quot; CPI. That reflected a 0.3% (2.9% y/y) rise in shelter prices as well as a 0.5% (6.0% y/y) gain in education expenses. Medical care services prices rose 0.3% (4.1% y/y), the smallest rise in three months and public transportation prices increased for the first month in the last three, by 0.2% (4.8% y/y).<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060517e.jpg" width="353">
Prices for core goods rose just 0.1% (0.4% y/y), further suggesting that the pass-through of higher energy prices has been limited. Apparel prices did jump 0.6% (-0.2% y/y) following a 1.0% March spike but window &amp; floor coverings prices fell 1.6% (-4.5% y/y) and household appliance prices rose a modest 0.1% (1.3% y/y). New &amp; used motor vehicle prices also rose a slim 0.1% (0.3% y/y) and tobacco prices fell 0.2% +4.2% y/y). Medical care commodity prices rose 0.4% (4.3% y/y).
Food prices were unchanged, an increase held back by a 0.7% (-0.5% y/y) decline in dairy products and another 0.1% decline (+2.6% y/y) drop in fruits &amp; vegetables prices. Meat, fish &amp; poultry prices rose 0.2% (0.5% y/y).
The chained CPI, which adjusts for shifts in the mix of consumer purchases, increased 0.6% and less food &amp; energy prices rose 0.3%, half the prior month&#39;s gain.
Gas-Price Inflation from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis can be found <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/mt/20060601/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/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM">Consumer Price Index</a> </th>
<th scope="col">April</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total&nbsp;</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Services less Energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Energy</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>17.9%</td>
<td>16.9%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Food</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</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>0.6%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Mortgage Applications Recovered 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> May 17, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060517f.jpg" width="353">
Last week, the total number of mortgage applications recovered most of the prior week&#39;s decline with a 4.6% gain. The rise lifted the average level in May 0.3% above the April average.
Purchase applications rose 2.4% following a 3.9% w/w decline the prior week. As a result, purchase applications in May are 2.3% ahead of April which rose 1.1% versus March.
During the last ten years there has been a negative 80% correlation between the interest rate level on 30-year financing and purchase applications while during those years there has been a 54% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing single family home sales.
Applications to refinance recovered about all of the prior week&#39;s decline with an 8.4% rise. Nevertheless, the May level is 2.7% below the April average which fell 4.1% from March.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage jumped to 6.90% from 6.84% the prior week and the rate on 15-year financing increased to 6.55%. Rates have risen roughly 50 basis points since year end 2005. Interest rates on 15 and 30 year mortgages are closely correlated (&gt;90%) with the rate on 10 year Treasury securities and during the last ten years there has been a (negative) 82% correlation between purchase applications and the effective rate on a 30-Year mortgage.
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">05/12/06</th>
<th scope="col">05/05/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>588.0</td>
<td>562.1</td>
<td>-15.9%</td>
<td>708.6</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>426.7</td>
<td>416.5</td>
<td>-9.1%</td>
<td>470.9</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>1,546.8</td>
<td>1,427.4</td>
<td>-24.1%</td>
<td>2,092.3</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Chain Store Sales Unchanged. Gasoline Prices Jumped 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> May 17, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060517c.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales were unchanged last week, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey, after a modest 0.4% decline to open the month. So far, sales in May are 0.3% ahead of the April average which rose 1.6% from March.
During the last ten years there has been a 47% correlation between the y/y change in chain store sales and the change in nonauto retail sales less gasoline.
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.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060517b.jpg" width="353">
Retail gasoline prices rose four cents last week to $2.95 per gallon, however, yesterday spot market gasoline prices dropped again and the NY price is off nearly a dime from last week.
The latest Short-Term Energy Outlook from the US Energy Information Administration is available <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html"> 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/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">05/13/06</th>
<th scope="col">05/06/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>475.7</td>
<td>475.9</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Firm Q1 Growth in Singapore Prompts Hike in "Official" 2006 Forecast; Net Exports, Business Equipment Investment Lead 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> May 17, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060517a.jpg" width="353">
Singapore&#39;s economy turned in a much better than expected performance in Q1, with its GDP up 6.8% annualized from Q4 and 10.6% from a year ago. Forecasts had called for a greater slowdown after the strong close to 2005 in Q4, when GDP was up 12.5% from Q3. The good gain prompted the Singapore government to raise its official forecast for the entire year from 4%-6% projected in February to 5%-7%.
On a year-over-year basis, both goods- and service-producing sectors participated in the good growth. Goods were led by manufacturing, which expanded by 20%. Press reports cited strength in electronic products, a sizable portion of manufacturing in Singapore. Also, among the industry &quot;cluster&quot; data compiled by the Singapore Economic Development Board, biomedical production and transport engineering were also very strong.
Value added in service industries gained 8.1% year-on-year, its best showing since Q2 2004. Wholesale and retail trade was a leader here, reflecting, according to the Department of Statistics, the movement of re-exports, which expanded 39.5% from a year ago in current prices.
Net exports were a leading source of demand, accounting for nearly 80% of the yearly GDP growth. Among domestic sectors, demand for machinery and equipment increased 19% from a year ago.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060517g.jpg" width="353"><img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060517h.jpg" width="353">

<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/EMERGEPR/@P4/@P42/@P42.HTM">Singapore</a></th>
<th scope="col">Q1 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Q2 2005</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">GDP Qtr/Qtr</td>
<td>6.8</td>
<td>12.5</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>14.6</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Year/Year</td>
<td>10.6</td>
<td>8.6</td>
<td>7.6</td>
<td>5.7</td>
<td>6.4</td>
<td>9.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Goods Producing (Yr/Yr)</td>
<td>16.3</td>
<td>12.0</td>
<td>10.7</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>7.7</td>
<td>8.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Service Producing (Yr/Yr)</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>7.2</td>
<td>6.8</td>
<td>5.8</td>
<td>6.0</td>
<td>7.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

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 2006

Jump to:

Leading Economic Indicators Dip, March Revised Up

Initial Jobless Insurance Claims Surge

Initial Jobless Insurance Claims Surge

Firm Q1 Growth in Singapore Prompts Hike in "Official" 2006 Forecast; Net Exports, Business Equipment Investment Lead

Chain Store Sales Unchanged. Gasoline Prices Jumped

Mortgage Applications Recovered

CPI Up 0.6% Due To Energy & Services

CPI Up 0.6% Due To Energy & Services