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/060620f.jpg" width="353">
Italy&#39;s labor force survey for the first quarter shows commendable improvement in the employment situation throughout the country. Total employment rose almost 1% to 22.8 million in the first quarter from the last quarter of 2005 and was 1.2% above the first quarter or 2005. Employment in the North, where more than half the work force is employed, increased 1.2% over a year ago, while employment in the Central Region, where about 20% of the work force is employed, increased 1.9% over a year ago. Even in the depressed South, where almost 30% of the work force is employed, employment increased 0.6% above a year ago.Employment in the North and Central Regions has grown virtually steadily over the past five years while employment in the south has, more or less, stagnated. The first chart contrasts the trends in employment in the North and the South.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060620g.jpg" width="353">
The unemployment rate for the country as a whole was 7.4%, the lowest rate during the period for which data are available (Fourth quarter of 1992 to date). In the North the unemployment rate was 4.1%, in the central region, 6.1% and in the depressed south region, 13.6%. This last figure is also the lowest rate during the period for which data are available and is down from a peak of 19.7% in the second quarter of 1988.
Industrial orders for April rose 6.8% in the month and were 15.5% above a year ago. The big rise took place in export orders which rose 15.6% in the month and were 29.0% above a year ago. The increases in domestic orders were more subdued, 2.2% and 8.7%, respectively. The second chart shows the indexes (2000=100) for domestic and export orders.
Industrial sales declined in April from March, but were 5.7% above April, 2005. Domestic sales were 4.6% and foreign sales, 8.2% above their respective April, 2005 values. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Italy</th>
<th scope="col">Apr&nbsp; 06</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 05</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 05</th>
<th scope="col">M/M</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">Industrial Orders (2000=100)&nbsp;</td>
<td>115.0</td>
<td>107.7</td>
<td>99.6</td>
<td>6.78</td>
<td>15.46</td>
<td>102.0</td>
<td>98.9</td>
<td>95.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Domestic</td>
<td>105.</td>
<td>102.7</td>
<td>96.6</td>
<td>2.24</td>
<td>8.70</td>
<td>98.9</td>
<td>96.8</td>
<td>93.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Foreign</td>
<td>137.5</td>
<td>119.0</td>
<td>106.6</td>
<td>15.55</td>
<td>25.99</td>
<td>111.6</td>
<td>103.6</td>
<td>98.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Industrial Sales (2000=100)&nbsp;</td>
<td>112.8</td>
<td>115.0</td>
<td>106.7</td>
<td>-1.91</td>
<td>5.72</td>
<td>107.6</td>
<td>104.1</td>
<td>101.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Domestic</td>
<td>110.9</td>
<td>112.8</td>
<td>106.0</td>
<td>-1.68</td>
<td>4.62</td>
<td>106.4</td>
<td>104.1</td>
<td>101.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Foreign</td>
<td>117.7</td>
<td>120.8</td>
<td>108.8</td>
<td>-2.57</td>
<td>8.18</td>
<td>110.8</td>
<td>104.1</td>
<td>101.4&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td>Q1 06</td>
<td>Q4 05</td>
<td>Q1 05</td>
<td>Q/Q</td>
<td>Y/Y</td>
<td>20 05</td>
<td>2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Employment (thousands)</td>
<td>22,814</td>
<td>22,598</td>
<td>22,549</td>
<td>0.96</td>
<td>1.18</td>
<td>22,571</td>
<td>22,404</td>
<td>22,240</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">North</td>
<td>11,687</td>
<td>11,601</td>
<td>11,546</td>
<td>0.74</td>
<td>1.22</td>
<td>11,591</td>
<td>11,433</td>
<td>11,364</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Central</td>
<td>4,655</td>
<td>45-,594</td>
<td>4,567</td>
<td>1.32</td>
<td>1.93</td>
<td>4,577</td>
<td>4,539</td>
<td>4,424</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">South</td>
<td>6,472</td>
<td>6,403</td>
<td>6,436</td>
<td>1.08</td>
<td>0.56</td>
<td>6,414</td>
<td>6,431</td>
<td>6,452</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate</td>
<td>7.4</td>
<td>7.7</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>7.7</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>8.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">North</td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>4.2</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>4.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Central</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>6.6</td>
<td>6.3</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>6.4</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>6.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">South</td>
<td>13.6</td>
<td>14.0</td>
<td>14.5</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>14.3</td>
<td>14.9</td>
<td>16.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Italy's labor force survey for the first quarter shows commendable improvement in the employment situation throughout the country. Total employment rose almost 1% to 22.8 million in the first quarter from the last quarter of 2005 and [...]

Employment Situation in Italy Improves: Foreign New Orders up Sharply

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>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060620e.jpg" width="353">
The International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS reported that chain store sales were stable last week following a 1.2% surge during the prior week.
Sales so far in June are 0.2% below the May average which fell 0.4% from April. 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.
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC-UBS recovered another 1.0% (-2.2% y/y), up for the third week after several consecutive weeks of decline.
Retail gasoline prices fell four cents last week to an average $2.87 per gallon and reversed most of the increase during the prior two weeks. In spot market trading gasoline prices fell a nickel yesterday to $1.93 per gallon and were down a bit more than that from last week&#39;s average $1.99.
The just-released 2006 International Energy Outlook from the U.S. Energy Information Administration is available <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.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">06/17/06</th>
<th scope="col">06/10/06</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>473.6</td>
<td>473.6</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

The International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS reported that chain store sales were stable last week following a 1.2% surge during the prior week. Sales so far in June are 0.2% below the May average which fell 0.4% from [...]

Chain Store Sales Stable As Gas Prices 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/060620d.jpg" width="353">
The National Association of Home Builders&#39; (NAHB) reported that the June Composite Housing Market Index at 45 fell another 8.7% from May to the lowest level since April 1995. The figure matched Consensus expectations.
During the last twenty years there has been a 75% correlation between the y/y change in the Composite Index and the change in single family housing starts.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060620c.jpg" width="353">
The sub indexes covering current sales of single family homes (-39.0% y/y) and sales in the next six months (-37.5% y/y) were both down sharply m/m.
An index of the traffic of prospective home buyers dried up and fell 12.1% m/m (-47.3% y/y).
Housing markets around the country again were weak in June with the index for the Northeast off 14.9% (-43.7% y/y), in the Midwest off 13.8% (-51.9% y/y), out West down 1.6% (-31.5% y/y) and in the South off 3.9% (-36.4% y/y).
The NAHB index is a diffusion index based on a survey of builders. Readings above 50 signal that more builders view conditions as good than poor.
Visit the <a href="http://www.nahb.org">National Association of Home Builders</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S4/@S4.HTM">Nat&#39;l Association of Home Builders</a> </th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">June &#39;05</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Housing Market Index</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>64</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The National Association of Home Builders' (NAHB) reported that the June Composite Housing Market Index at 45 fell another 8.7% from May to the lowest level since April 1995. The figure matched Consensus expectations. During the last [...]

NAHB Housing Market Index Down Again

<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/060620a.jpg" width="353">
Housing starts rebounded 5.0% last month to 1.957M units and recovered about all of the April decline that was revised slightly shallower. The rise by far exceeded Consensus expectations for stability at 1.869M starts.
Total housing starts nevertheless remained 13.6% below the peak this past January.
Most of the surprise last month was due to a 19.7% m/m jump in multi family starts which reversed a sharp April decline. For the first five months of this year multi family starts averaged 362M units, equal to the first five months of 2005.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060620b.jpg" width="353">
Single-family starts recovered just a piece of the prior months&#39; weakness and rose 2.1% to 1.586M units after three months of decline. During the first five months of this year single family starts were 1.5% below the first five months of 2005 and in May were 12.6% below the January peak.
By region, single family housing starts were weakest in the Midwest and posted a 15.6% (-25.4% y/y) decline. In the Northeast starts also slipped by 0.7% (-1.5% y/y) but in the South single family starts rose 8.2% (1.3% y/y). Out West starts rose 4.6% (-12.1% y/y).
Building permits fell for the fourth consecutive month. The 2.1% decline lowered permits 13.8% below the peak last September and reflected a 2.1% (-12.2% y/y) drop in permits to build single family homes. Single family permits in May were down 17.5% from the peak last September.
A Supervisor&#39;s Perspective on Mortgage Markets and Mortgage Lending Practices from Federal Reserve Governor Susan Schmidt Bies is available <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2006/20060614/default.htm"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E901/@E90101/@E90101.HTM">Housing Starts (000s, AR)</a> </th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</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</td>
<td>1,957</td>
<td>1,863</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
<td>2,073</td>
<td>1,950</td>
<td>1,854</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Single-family</td>
<td>1,586</td>
<td>1,553</td>
<td>-7.6%</td>
<td>1,719</td>
<td>1,604</td>
<td>1,505</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Multi-family</td>
<td>371</td>
<td>310</td>
<td>17.0%</td>
<td>354</td>
<td>345</td>
<td>349</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Building Permits</td>
<td>1,932</td>
<td>1,973</td>
<td>-8.5%</td>
<td>2,144</td>
<td>2,057</td>
<td>1,8 88</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Housing starts rebounded 5.0% last month to 1.957M units and recovered about all of the April decline that was revised slightly shallower. The rise by far exceeded Consensus expectations for stability at 1.869M starts. Total housing [...]

Housing Starts Rebound

<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/060620a.jpg" width="353">
Housing starts rebounded 5.0% last month to 1.957M units and recovered about all of the April decline that was revised slightly shallower. The rise by far exceeded Consensus expectations for stability at 1.869M starts.
Total housing starts nevertheless remained 13.6% below the peak this past January.
Most of the surprise last month was due to a 19.7% m/m jump in multi family starts which reversed a sharp April decline. For the first five months of this year multi family starts averaged 362M units, equal to the first five months of 2005.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060620b.jpg" width="353">
Single-family starts recovered just a piece of the prior months&#39; weakness and rose 2.1% to 1.586M units after three months of decline. During the first five months of this year single family starts were 1.5% below the first five months of 2005 and in May were 12.6% below the January peak.
By region, single family housing starts were weakest in the Midwest and posted a 15.6% (-25.4% y/y) decline. In the Northeast starts also slipped by 0.7% (-1.5% y/y) but in the South single family starts rose 8.2% (1.3% y/y). Out West starts rose 4.6% (-12.1% y/y).
Building permits fell for the fourth consecutive month. The 2.1% decline lowered permits 13.8% below the peak last September and reflected a 2.1% (-12.2% y/y) drop in permits to build single family homes. Single family permits in May were down 17.5% from the peak last September.
A Supervisor&#39;s Perspective on Mortgage Markets and Mortgage Lending Practices from Federal Reserve Governor Susan Schmidt Bies is available <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2006/20060614/default.htm"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E901/@E90101/@E90101.HTM">Housing Starts (000s, AR)</a> </th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</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</td>
<td>1,957</td>
<td>1,863</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
<td>2,073</td>
<td>1,950</td>
<td>1,854</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Single-family</td>
<td>1,586</td>
<td>1,553</td>
<td>-7.6%</td>
<td>1,719</td>
<td>1,604</td>
<td>1,505</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Multi-family</td>
<td>371</td>
<td>310</td>
<td>17.0%</td>
<td>354</td>
<td>345</td>
<td>349</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Building Permits</td>
<td>1,932</td>
<td>1,973</td>
<td>-8.5%</td>
<td>2,144</td>
<td>2,057</td>
<td>1,8 88</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
NAHB Housing Market Index Down Again 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> June 20, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060620d.jpg" width="353">
The National Association of Home Builders&#39; (NAHB) reported that the June Composite Housing Market Index at 45 fell another 8.7% from May to the lowest level since April 1995. The figure matched Consensus expectations.
During the last twenty years there has been a 75% correlation between the y/y change in the Composite Index and the change in single family housing starts.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060620c.jpg" width="353">
The sub indexes covering current sales of single family homes (-39.0% y/y) and sales in the next six months (-37.5% y/y) were both down sharply m/m.
An index of the traffic of prospective home buyers dried up and fell 12.1% m/m (-47.3% y/y).
Housing markets around the country again were weak in June with the index for the Northeast off 14.9% (-43.7% y/y), in the Midwest off 13.8% (-51.9% y/y), out West down 1.6% (-31.5% y/y) and in the South off 3.9% (-36.4% y/y).
The NAHB index is a diffusion index based on a survey of builders. Readings above 50 signal that more builders view conditions as good than poor.
Visit the <a href="http://www.nahb.org">National Association of Home Builders</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S4/@S4.HTM">Nat&#39;l Association of Home Builders</a> </th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">June &#39;05</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Housing Market Index</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>64</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Chain Store Sales Stable As Gas Prices Fell 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> June 20, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060620e.jpg" width="353">
The International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS reported that chain store sales were stable last week following a 1.2% surge during the prior week.
Sales so far in June are 0.2% below the May average which fell 0.4% from April. 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.
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC-UBS recovered another 1.0% (-2.2% y/y), up for the third week after several consecutive weeks of decline.
Retail gasoline prices fell four cents last week to an average $2.87 per gallon and reversed most of the increase during the prior two weeks. In spot market trading gasoline prices fell a nickel yesterday to $1.93 per gallon and were down a bit more than that from last week&#39;s average $1.99.
The just-released 2006 International Energy Outlook from the U.S. Energy Information Administration is available <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.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">06/17/06</th>
<th scope="col">06/10/06</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>473.6</td>
<td>473.6</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
 Employment Situation in Italy Improves: Foreign New Orders up Sharply  
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> June 20, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060620f.jpg" width="353">
Italy&#39;s labor force survey for the first quarter shows commendable improvement in the employment situation throughout the country. Total employment rose almost 1% to 22.8 million in the first quarter from the last quarter of 2005 and was 1.2% above the first quarter or 2005. Employment in the North, where more than half the work force is employed, increased 1.2% over a year ago, while employment in the Central Region, where about 20% of the work force is employed, increased 1.9% over a year ago. Even in the depressed South, where almost 30% of the work force is employed, employment increased 0.6% above a year ago. Employment in the North and Central Regions has grown virtually steadily over the past five years while employment in the south has, more or less, stagnated. The first chart contrasts the trends in employment in the North and the South.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060620g.jpg" width="353">
The unemployment rate for the country as a whole was 7.4%, the lowest rate during the period for which data are available (Fourth quarter of 1992 to date). In the North the unemployment rate was 4.1%, in the central region, 6.1% and in the depressed south region, 13.6%. This last figure is also the lowest rate during the period for which data are available and is down from a peak of 19.7% in the second quarter of 1988.
Industrial orders for April rose 6.8% in the month and were 15.5% above a year ago. The big rise took place in export orders which rose 15.6% in the month and were 29.0% above a year ago. The increases in domestic orders were more subdued, 2.2% and 8.7%, respectively. The second chart shows the indexes (2000=100) for domestic and export orders.
Industrial sales declined in April from March, but were 5.7% above April, 2005. Domestic sales were 4.6% and foreign sales, 8.2% above their respective April, 2005 values. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Italy</th>
<th scope="col">Apr&nbsp; 06</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 05</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 05</th>
<th scope="col">M/M</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">Industrial Orders (2000=100)&nbsp;</td>
<td>115.0</td>
<td>107.7</td>
<td>99.6</td>
<td>6.78</td>
<td>15.46</td>
<td>102.0</td>
<td>98.9</td>
<td>95.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Domestic</td>
<td>105.</td>
<td>102.7</td>
<td>96.6</td>
<td>2.24</td>
<td>8.70</td>
<td>98.9</td>
<td>96.8</td>
<td>93.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Foreign</td>
<td>137.5</td>
<td>119.0</td>
<td>106.6</td>
<td>15.55</td>
<td>25.99</td>
<td>111.6</td>
<td>103.6</td>
<td>98.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Industrial Sales (2000=100)&nbsp;</td>
<td>112.8</td>
<td>115.0</td>
<td>106.7</td>
<td>-1.91</td>
<td>5.72</td>
<td>107.6</td>
<td>104.1</td>
<td>101.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Domestic</td>
<td>110.9</td>
<td>112.8</td>
<td>106.0</td>
<td>-1.68</td>
<td>4.62</td>
<td>106.4</td>
<td>104.1</td>
<td>101.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Foreign</td>
<td>117.7</td>
<td>120.8</td>
<td>108.8</td>
<td>-2.57</td>
<td>8.18</td>
<td>110.8</td>
<td>104.1</td>
<td>101.4&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td>Q1 06</td>
<td>Q4 05</td>
<td>Q1 05</td>
<td>Q/Q</td>
<td>Y/Y</td>
<td>20 05</td>
<td>2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Employment (thousands)</td>
<td>22,814</td>
<td>22,598</td>
<td>22,549</td>
<td>0.96</td>
<td>1.18</td>
<td>22,571</td>
<td>22,404</td>
<td>22,240</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">North</td>
<td>11,687</td>
<td>11,601</td>
<td>11,546</td>
<td>0.74</td>
<td>1.22</td>
<td>11,591</td>
<td>11,433</td>
<td>11,364</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Central</td>
<td>4,655</td>
<td>45-,594</td>
<td>4,567</td>
<td>1.32</td>
<td>1.93</td>
<td>4,577</td>
<td>4,539</td>
<td>4,424</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">South</td>
<td>6,472</td>
<td>6,403</td>
<td>6,436</td>
<td>1.08</td>
<td>0.56</td>
<td>6,414</td>
<td>6,431</td>
<td>6,452</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate</td>
<td>7.4</td>
<td>7.7</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>7.7</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>8.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">North</td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>4.2</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>4.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Central</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>6.6</td>
<td>6.3</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>6.4</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>6.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">South</td>
<td>13.6</td>
<td>14.0</td>
<td>14.5</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>14.3</td>
<td>14.9</td>
<td>16.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060619c.jpg" width="353">
The Euro Zone reported a deficit for April of 870 million euros in its trade in goods with the rest of the world. This was more than double the March figure of 350 million euros, and was in sharp contrast to the surplus of 3,167 million euros of April, 2005.
The deterioration in the Euro Zone&#39;s trade balance over the past year is largely the result of the increasing cost of fuel imports. The import category--mineral fuels and lubricants--is compared with the import category of manufactured products in the first chart. The data are plotted on a log scale so that the rates of change in the two series can be compared. It is apparent that imports of petroleum products have been rising at a much faster rate than those of manufactured products.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060619d.jpg" width="353">
The impact of rising oil prices is also reflected in the Euro Zone&#39;s trade balances with Russia and with OPEC, as can be seen in the second chart. The deterioration in trade with Russia from April of last year to April of this year was 1,408.2 million euros and that in trade with OPEC was 1,379.5 million euros. Together these two deficits accounted for about two thirds of the total deficit of 4,036.6 million euros.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060619e.jpg" width="353">
The final chart compares the prices of mineral fuels, lubricants and related products with the prices of all imports. Once again the data have been presented on a log scale to facilitate the comparison of rates of change. Over the past year, the prices of mineral fuels, lubricants and related product have risen 35.8% or more than three times as fast as the prices of all imports.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/EUROSTAT/EUROSTAT.htm">Euro Zone Trade in Goods</a> &nbsp;(SA &amp; WDA--Million Euros)</th>
<th scope="col">April&nbsp; 06</th>
<th scope="col">April 05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y Difference</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Exports&nbsp;</td>
<td>113,735.5</td>
<td>99,919.8</td>
<td>17,872.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Imports</td>
<td>114,625.4</td>
<td>96,753.0</td>
<td>13,835.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Balance</td>
<td>-869.9</td>
<td>3,166.8</td>
<td>-4,036.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Balance of Mineral Fuels and Lubricants</td>
<td>-20,037.5</td>
<td>-15,215.7</td>
<td>-4,821.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Balance on Manufactured Products</td>
<td>20,843.1</td>
<td>19,328.9</td>
<td>1,514.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Balance with Russia</td>
<td>-3,747.6</td>
<td>-2,339.4</td>
<td>-1,408.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Import Price of Mineral Fuels, Lubricants &nbsp;and related Products (2000=100)</td>
<td>125.10</td>
<td>101.2</td>
<td>11.6*</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Import Price of Total Imports</td>
<td>169.90</td>
<td>125.10</td>
<td>35.8*</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Euro Zone reported a deficit for April of 870 million euros in its trade in goods with the rest of the world. This was more than double the March figure of 350 million euros, and was in sharp contrast to the surplus of 3,167 [...]

Euro Zone Trade Deficit Increases in April: Rising Cost of Petroleum Imports the Culprit

<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/060619b.jpg" width="353">
The June Empire State Mfg. Index of General Business Conditions, reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, surged 16.07 points to 29.01 and recovered all of the declines during the prior two months. Consensus expectations had been for a slight m/m decline to 11.0.
Since the series&#39; inception in 2001 there has been a 75% correlation between the index level and the three month change in U.S. factory sector industrial production.
New orders &amp; shipments both surged to near the series&#39; recent highs while the index indicating the number of employees slipped to its lowest level of the year.
Pricing pressure rose to a level near the year&#39;s high. Since 2001 there has been an 88% correlation between the index of prices paid and the three month change in the core intermediate materials PPI.
Like the Philadelphia Fed Index of General Business Conditions, the Empire State Business Conditions Index reflects answers to an independent survey question; it is not a weighted combination of the components.
The Empire State index of expectations for business conditions in six months for June recovered just a piece of the prior month&#39;s sharp decline as expected new orders fell and pricing pressure surged to the highest level of this year.
The Empire State Manufacturing Survey is a monthly survey of manufacturers in New York State conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Participants from across the state in a variety of industries respond to a questionnaire and report the change in a variety of indicators from the previous month. Respondents also state the likely direction of these same indicators six months ahead. April 2002 is the first report, although survey data date back to July 2001. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060619a.jpg" width="353">
For more on the Empire State Manufacturing Survey, including methodologies and the latest report, click <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/regional_economy/empiresurvey_overview.html">here</a>.
The rise in the Empire State Manufacturing index ran somewhat counter to the decline in Philadelphia Fed&#39;s index reported Friday. The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond will report its June Mfg. Survey index later this week. The reading will follow a sharp fall-off in the May figure, notably for orders, shipments and jobs The data will be available in the Haver SURVEYS database.
During the last ten years there has been a 39% correlation between the Richmond survey index level and the one month change in U.S. factory sector industrial production. The latest Richmond Fed Mfg. Survey is available <a href="http://www.richmondfed.org/research/regional_conditions/manufacturing_conditions/index.cfm">here</a>.
The Richmond Fed also publishes indexes of conditions in the Service Sector and the latest release is available <a href="http://www.richmondfed.org/research/regional_conditions/service_sector/index.cfm">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/SURVEYS/@S5/@S511/@S511.HTM">Empire State Manufacturing Survey</a> </th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">June &#39;05 </th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">General Business Conditions (diffusion index)</td>
<td>29.01</td>
<td>12.94</td>
<td>10.18</td>
<td>15.56</td>
<td>28.79</td>
<td>15.98</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The June Empire State Mfg. Index of General Business Conditions, reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, surged 16.07 points to 29.01 and recovered all of the declines during the prior two months. Consensus expectations had [...]

Empire State Index Recovered in June

<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/060619b.jpg" width="353">
The June Empire State Mfg. Index of General Business Conditions, reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, surged 16.07 points to 29.01 and recovered all of the declines during the prior two months. Consensus expectations had been for a slight m/m decline to 11.0.
Since the series&#39; inception in 2001 there has been a 75% correlation between the index level and the three month change in U.S. factory sector industrial production.
New orders &amp; shipments both surged to near the series&#39; recent highs while the index indicating the number of employees slipped to its lowest level of the year.
Pricing pressure rose to a level near the year&#39;s high. Since 2001 there has been an 88% correlation between the index of prices paid and the three month change in the core intermediate materials PPI.
Like the Philadelphia Fed Index of General Business Conditions, the Empire State Business Conditions Index reflects answers to an independent survey question; it is not a weighted combination of the components.
The Empire State index of expectations for business conditions in six months for June recovered just a piece of the prior month&#39;s sharp decline as expected new orders fell and pricing pressure surged to the highest level of this year.
The Empire State Manufacturing Survey is a monthly survey of manufacturers in New York State conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Participants from across the state in a variety of industries respond to a questionnaire and report the change in a variety of indicators from the previous month. Respondents also state the likely direction of these same indicators six months ahead. April 2002 is the first report, although survey data date back to July 2001. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060619a.jpg" width="353">
For more on the Empire State Manufacturing Survey, including methodologies and the latest report, click <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/regional_economy/empiresurvey_overview.html">here</a>.
The rise in the Empire State Manufacturing index ran somewhat counter to the decline in Philadelphia Fed&#39;s index reported Friday. The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond will report its June Mfg. Survey index later this week. The reading will follow a sharp fall-off in the May figure, notably for orders, shipments and jobs The data will be available in the Haver SURVEYS database.
During the last ten years there has been a 39% correlation between the Richmond survey index level and the one month change in U.S. factory sector industrial production. The latest Richmond Fed Mfg. Survey is available <a href="http://www.richmondfed.org/research/regional_conditions/manufacturing_conditions/index.cfm">here</a>.
The Richmond Fed also publishes indexes of conditions in the Service Sector and the latest release is available <a href="http://www.richmondfed.org/research/regional_conditions/service_sector/index.cfm">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/SURVEYS/@S5/@S511/@S511.HTM">Empire State Manufacturing Survey</a> </th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">June &#39;05 </th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">General Business Conditions (diffusion index)</td>
<td>29.01</td>
<td>12.94</td>
<td>10.18</td>
<td>15.56</td>
<td>28.79</td>
<td>15.98</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
 Euro Zone Trade Deficit Increases in April: Rising Cost of Petroleum Imports the Culprit 
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> June 19, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060619c.jpg" width="353">
The Euro Zone reported a deficit for April of 870 million euros in its trade in goods with the rest of the world. This was more than double the March figure of 350 million euros, and was in sharp contrast to the surplus of 3,167 million euros of April, 2005.
The deterioration in the Euro Zone&#39;s trade balance over the past year is largely the result of the increasing cost of fuel imports. The import category--mineral fuels and lubricants--is compared with the import category of manufactured products in the first chart. The data are plotted on a log scale so that the rates of change in the two series can be compared. It is apparent that imports of petroleum products have been rising at a much faster rate than those of manufactured products.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060619d.jpg" width="353">
The impact of rising oil prices is also reflected in the Euro Zone&#39;s trade balances with Russia and with OPEC, as can be seen in the second chart. The deterioration in trade with Russia from April of last year to April of this year was 1,408.2 million euros and that in trade with OPEC was 1,379.5 million euros. Together these two deficits accounted for about two thirds of the total deficit of 4,036.6 million euros.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060619e.jpg" width="353">
The final chart compares the prices of mineral fuels, lubricants and related products with the prices of all imports. Once again the data have been presented on a log scale to facilitate the comparison of rates of change. Over the past year, the prices of mineral fuels, lubricants and related product have risen 35.8% or more than three times as fast as the prices of all imports.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/EUROSTAT/EUROSTAT.htm">Euro Zone Trade in Goods</a> &nbsp;(SA &amp; WDA--Million Euros)</th>
<th scope="col">April&nbsp; 06</th>
<th scope="col">April 05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y Difference</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Exports&nbsp;</td>
<td>113,735.5</td>
<td>99,919.8</td>
<td>17,872.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Imports</td>
<td>114,625.4</td>
<td>96,753.0</td>
<td>13,835.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Balance</td>
<td>-869.9</td>
<td>3,166.8</td>
<td>-4,036.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Balance of Mineral Fuels and Lubricants</td>
<td>-20,037.5</td>
<td>-15,215.7</td>
<td>-4,821.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Balance on Manufactured Products</td>
<td>20,843.1</td>
<td>19,328.9</td>
<td>1,514.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Balance with Russia</td>
<td>-3,747.6</td>
<td>-2,339.4</td>
<td>-1,408.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Import Price of Mineral Fuels, Lubricants &nbsp;and related Products (2000=100)</td>
<td>125.10</td>
<td>101.2</td>
<td>11.6*</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Import Price of Total Imports</td>
<td>169.90</td>
<td>125.10</td>
<td>35.8*</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</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

250501J5.jpg

250501K5.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

The ISM figures are based on responses from over 400 purchasing executives from 18 industries, which are weighted according to each industry’s contribution to GDP. These indexes are diffusion indexes where a reading above 50 indicates expansion and a reading below 50 points to contraction. The figures from the Institute for Supply Management can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database; further detail is found in the **SURVEYS** database. The expectations number is available in Haver’s **AS1REPNA** database.

250501L5.jpg

250501M5.jpg

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

U.S. ISM Manufacturing Index Indicates Contraction in April

Winnie Tapasanun

250501N.jpg

250501O.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

250501P.jpg

250501Q.jpg

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

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

Carol Stone, CBE

250501A8.jpg

250501B8.jpg

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

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

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

Economic conditions vary widely across states and territories.  In the week ended April 12, the highest unemployment rates were in New Jersey (2.39%), California (2.24%), Washington (2.19%), Rhode Island (2.17%) and Massachusetts (1.93%).  The lowest rates were in Florida (0.35%), South Dakota (0.40%), Alabama (0.41%), Virginia (0.45%) and Tennessee (0.48%).  Rates in other notable states include the Illinois (1.85%), New York (1.71%), Pennsylvania (1.54%) and Texas (1.09%). These state data are not seasonally adjusted.

Data on weekly unemployment claims are from the Department of Labor itself, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They begin in 1967 and are contained in Haver’s **WEEKLY** database and summarized monthly in U**SECON**. Data for individual states are in **REGIONW** back to December 1986. The expectations figure is from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250501C8.jpg

250501D8.jpg

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

U.S. Initial Jobless Claims Rise Notably in April 28 Week

250430N1.jpg

250430O1.jpg

Real GDP eased 0.3% SAAR (+2.1% y/y) during the first quarter of 2025 after increasing 2.4% in Q4’24 and 3.1% in Q3’24. A 0.4% increase had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. It was the first decline since Q1 2022.

Foreign trade subtracted 4.83 percentage points from growth last quarter as imports surged 41.3% (13.4% y/y) ahead of tariffs, which began to come into effect in the first quarter. The rise followed a 1.9% decline in Q4’24. Exports rose 1.8% (3.0% y/y) after easing 0.2% in Q4. Inventories added 2.25 percentage points to growth after subtracting 0.84 percentage point from Q4 growth.

Real final sales to domestic purchasers grew 2.3% (2.9% y/y) in Q1 after rising 3.0% in Q4. Personal consumption expenditures rose 1.8% (3.1% y/y) following a 4.0% gain. Durable goods spending fell 3.4% (+5.3% y/y) after surging 12.4% in Q4. Motor vehicle purchases declined 11.1% (+5.5% y/y) after strengthening 19.7% in Q4. Spending on home furnishings & appliances gained 1.5% (6.1% y/y) following a 5.4% rise. Recreational goods & vehicle outlays rose 2.5% (7.0% y/y) last quarter after a 13.9% Q4 increase.

Nondurable goods outlays rose 2.7% (3.0% y/y) following 3.1% growth in Q4. Apparel spending increased 6.7% (2.5% y/y) following a 5.0% rise. Food & beverage buying gained 2.5% (2.3% y/y) after a 1.8% increase. Gasoline & fuel oil purchases increased 4.6% (3.4% y/y) after falling 2.0% in Q4.

Spending on services increased 2.4% last quarter (2.7% y/y) after a 3.0% gain. Outlays on housing & utilities increased 3.4% (1.8% y/y) after rising 1.1% in Q4. Health care expenditures rose 4.0% (4.8% y/y) following a 4.7% strengthening. Transportation outlays increased 5.3% (4.6% y/y) after a 3.7% rise while recreation spending rose 4.7% (2.8% y/y) following a 4.5% rise. Restaurant & hotel expenditures declined 2.1% (+0.5% y/y) following a 2.8% rise. Financial services expenditures rose 1.9% (2.0% y/y) after a 3.1% Q4 increase.

Business fixed investment increased 9.8% (3.6% y/y) following a 3.0% decline in Q4. Expenditures on structures rose 0.4% (-0.4% y/y) after a 2.9% increase. Expenditures on producers’ durable equipment jumped 22.5% (8.0% y/y) after falling 8.7%.  Outlays on information processing equipment soared 69.3% (18.9% y/y) following a 7.3% decline. Industrial equipment investment fell 1.4% (-0.3% y/y) after easing 0.9%. Intellectual property product spending rose 4.1% (1.8% y/y) following a 0.5% decline. 

Residential structures investment increased 1.3% (-0.1% y/y) in Q1 after a 5.5% Q4 rise.

250430P1.jpg

250430Q1.jpg

Government spending fell 1.5% (+2.4% y/y) after a 3.1% Q4 rise. Federal government expenditures declined 5.1% (+2.9% y/y) after rising 4.0% in Q4. National defense expenditures declined 8.0% (+4.0% y/y) after increasing 4.8% in Q4. State & local government spending rose 0.8% (2.1% y/y) following a 2.5% rise.

The GDP price index rose 3.7% (2.6% y/y) after increasing 2.3% in Q4. It was the largest increase since Q4’22. A 2.4% increase had been expected. The PCE chain price index increased 3.6% (2.5% y/y) following a 2.4% rise. The PCE price index excluding food and energy rose 3.5% (2.8% y/y) after increasing 2.6% in Q4. The business fixed investment price index rose 0.4% (1.8% y/y) after 1.5% rise. The residential price index strengthened 3.9% (3.2% y/y) after a 1.9% rise while the government price index increased 4.7% (2.8% y/y) following a 2.1% rise.

The GDP data can be found in Haver’s **USECON** and **USNA** databases. **USNA** contains virtually all of the Bureau of Economic Analysis detail in the national accounts. The Action Economics consensus estimates can be found in **AS1REPNA**.

250430R1.jpg

250430S1.jpg

- Decline in GDP is first in three years.
- Foreign trade subtracts substantially ahead of tariffs.
- Domestic final demand growth weakens.
- Price index strengthens with higher core PCE prices.

Economy in Brief: June 2006

Jump to:

Employment Situation in Italy Improves: Foreign New Orders up Sharply

Chain Store Sales Stable As Gas Prices Fell

NAHB Housing Market Index Down Again

Housing Starts Rebound

Housing Starts Rebound

Euro Zone Trade Deficit Increases in April: Rising Cost of Petroleum Imports the Culprit

Empire State Index Recovered in June

Empire State Index Recovered in June