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/070718e.jpg" width="353">
The total number of mortgage applications rose 1.9% last week following a 1.1% gain the prior week, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.
Higher applications to refinance led the increase in the total with a 4.9% increase after three consecutive down weeks.
Purchase applications fell 1.6% after the prior week&#146;s 3.8% increase.
During the last ten years there has been a 58% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing single family home sales.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070718f.jpg" width="353">
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage fell slightly to 6.93% from 6.96% the prior week. Rates averaged 6.84% last month, up from 6.28% in December. The peak for 30 year financing was 7.08% late in June. Rates for 15-year financing similarly fell to 6.63% last week. Interest rates on 15 and 30 year mortgages are closely correlated (&gt;90%) with the rate on 10 year Treasury securities.
During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 79% correlation between the level of applications for purchase and the effective interest rate on a 30-year mortgage.<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:
EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">
The Mortgage Bankers Association surveys between 20 and 35 top lenders in the U.S. housing industry. Then it derives its refinance, purchase and market indexes. The weekly survey covers roughly 50% of all U.S. residential mortgage applications processed each week by mortgage banks, commercial banks and thrifts. 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></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">07/13/07 </th>
<th scope="col">07/06/07 </th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y </th>
<th scope="col">2006 </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index </td>
<td>631.6</td>
<td>626.2 </td>
<td>16.8% </td>
<td>584.2 </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase </td>
<td>446.5 </td>
<td>4523.9 </td>
<td>12.0% </td>
<td>406.9 </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing </td>
<td>1,717.4 </td>
<td>1,636.9 </td>
<td>24.7% </td>
<td>1,634.0 </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

The total number of mortgage applications rose 1.9% last week following a 1.1% gain the prior week, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. Higher applications to refinance led the increase in the total with a 4.9% increase [...]

Mortgage Applications Up Slightly

<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/070718c.jpg" width="353">
Housing starts rose 2.3% during June to 1.467M and slightly beat Consensus expectations for 1.45M starts. The increase did little to dampen this year&#146;s pace of 20%+ y/y declines.
The increase in June starts was all in multi-family structures. These rose 12.5% to 316,000 but essentially have been moving sideways.
Single-family starts slipped 0.2% to 1.15M, down for the third month in a row.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070718d.jpg" width="353">
By region, single-family housing starts in the South fell a hard 4.6% (-27.2% y/y). Single-family starts in the Northeast rose 0.9% (19.6% y/y) and starts in the Midwest rose 3.1% (-21.7% y/y). Out West starts recovered 6.7% (-20.3% y/y). 
Today&#146;s testimony by Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/2007/july/testimony.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/USECON/@E9/@E901/@E90101/@E90101.HTM">Housing Starts (000s, AR)</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>1,467</td>
<td>1,434</td>
<td>-19.4%</td>
<td>1,819</td>
<td>2,073</td>
<td>1,950</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Single-family</td>
<td>1,151</td>
<td>1,153</td>
<td>-21.6%</td>
<td>1,478</td>
<td>1,719</td>
<td>1,604</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Multi-family</td>
<td>316</td>
<td>281</td>
<td>-9.7%</td>
<td>341</td>
<td>354</td>
<td>345</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Building Permits</td>
<td>1,596</td>
<td>1,513</td>
<td>-24.3%</td>
<td>1,834</td>
<td>2,159</td>
<td>2,058</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Housing starts rose 2.3% during June to 1.467M and slightly beat Consensus expectations for 1.45M starts. The increase did little to dampen this years pace of 20%+ y/y declines. The increase in June starts was all in multi-family [...]

Total Housing Starts Uptick All Multi-Family, Single-Family Down

Robert Brusca

<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/070717j.jpg" width="353">
The Industry index from METI is in a sharp decline and is lower over six months for a period of three months running. Services (the tertiary index) tend to be more stable. Their index has slowed in the past few months and even fell in May but it is growing at pace just below 2%.
The tertiary and industry index are still relatively strong in their five year context. Fixing them in the range of values they have experienced over the past five years we find that the tertiary index is in its 95Th percentile (top 5-percent). The Industrial gauge is a bit lower but resides in the 84th percentile about the top 15 percentile of its range. The percentile standing of the MFG sector is higher than we get from other surveys of Japan (NTC has the MFG sector in the bottom 30 percent of its five year range). Japan remains unconcerned about this weakness and the BoJ continues to talk of when it will go back to hiking rates. Onew BOJ board member thinks they should already have hiked them again.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
 Key Japanese Sector Surveys
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="3">Raw readings of each survey</td>
<td colspan="2">Percent of 5Yr range*</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"> Business Activity (METI:Indexes)</td>
<td>May-07</td>
<td>Apr-07</td>
<td>Mar-07</td>
<td>May-07</td>
<td>Apr-07</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"> Industry</td>
<td>107.1</td>
<td>107.4</td>
<td>107.6</td>
<td>84.9%</td>
<td>86.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"> Tertiary (Services)</td>
<td>110.2</td>
<td>110.3</td>
<td>108.6</td>
<td>95.1%</td>
<td>96.1%</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>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">*100 is high; Zero is low</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Industry index from METI is in a sharp decline and is lower over six months for a period of three months running. Services (the tertiary index) tend to be more stable. Their index has slowed in the past few months and even fell in [...]

METI Sector Surveys Show Some Weakness in May

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/070717g.jpg" width="353">
The July ZEW survey of German institutional investors and analysts revealed a sharp deterioration in the excess of those who see improvement in the economic outlook six months ahead and those who see worsening conditions. The excess in July was 10.4% compared with 20.3% in June. The historical average of optimists over pessimists is 32.8%.
The participants in the ZEW survey also expressed slightly less confidence in the current situation. The excess of optimists regarding current conditions fell to 88.2% in July from 88.7% in June, nevertheless, the confidence in the current situation is among the strongest reported over the entire history of the survey, as can be seen in the first chart.
Concerns over the rising price of oil, the strengthening of the euro and higher interest rates may have accounted for some of the weakening confidence among the financial community. Although there was some relief to the rising price of oil and strengthening of the Euro in the second quarter of this year, the price of oil has risen almost 58% from the low point of the year of January 18, to July 16 and the euro is up almost 7% over the same period. The daily prices of a barrel of Brent Crude and the dollar exchange rates of the euro for the current year are shown in the second chart. While the European Central Bank (ECB) did not raise rates at its last meeting, its base rate has risen steadily over the last 18 months from 2% in November, 2005 to 4% currently, as shown in the third chart. Moreover, the bank continues to stress that further tightening may be needed. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td><img border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070717h.jpg" width="353"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070717i.jpg" width="353"> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">GERMANY&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">July 07</th>
<th scope="col">June 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">July&nbsp; 06&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">M/M Chg&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y Chg&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">ZEW Indicator (%)</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Expectations 6 mo ahead</td>
<td>10.4</td>
<td>20.3</td>
<td>15.1</td>
<td>-9.9</td>
<td>-4.7</td>
<td>22.3</td>
<td>34.8</td>
<td>44.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Current conditions</td>
<td>88.2</td>
<td>88.7</td>
<td>23.3</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>64.9</td>
<td>18.3</td>
<td>-61.8</td>
<td>-67.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td>7/16/07</td>
<td>1/18/07</td>
<td>% Chg</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Euro/Dollar Exchange rate</td>
<td>1.38</td>
<td>1.29</td>
<td>6.98</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Price of&nbsp; Oil per bbl. Brent Crude</td>
<td>79.73</td>
<td>50.83</td>
<td>57.91</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The July ZEW survey of German institutional investors and analysts revealed a sharp deterioration in the excess of those who see improvement in the economic outlook six months ahead and those who see worsening conditions. The excess [...]

Confidence Among the German Financial Community Weakens in July

<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/070717c.jpg" width="353">
The Composite Housing Market Index from the National Association of Home Builders&#39; (NAHB) fell last month to the lowest level since early 1991. At 28 for June, the index fell 6.7% from May and fell by one third from a year earlier. 
During the last twenty years there has been a 76% 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/070717d.jpg" width="353"> 
The sub-index for current sales also fell 6.5% from May (-38.3% y/y) and the sub-index covering prospective sales in the next six months fell 4.9% m/m (-23.5% y/y). 
Traffic of prospective home buyers fell 4.5% (-27.6% y/y).
The NAHB index is a diffusion index based on a survey of builders. Readings above 50 signal that more builders view conditions 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;06 </th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Housing Market Index</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>68</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Composite Housing Market Index from the National Association of Home Builders' (NAHB) fell last month to the lowest level since early 1991. At 28 for June, the index fell 6.7% from May and fell by one third from a year earlier. [...]

NAHB Housing Market Index Fell 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/070717a.jpg" width="353">
The producer price index for finished goods fell 0.2% last month following its 0.9% rise in May. The decline compared to Consensus forecasts for a 0.1% increase and it was the first decline since January.
Food prices fell 0.8% (+6.3% y/y) after May&#39;s 0.2% dip.
Energy prices, in addition, declined a sharp 1.1% (+4.3% y/y) as gasoline prices fell 3.9% (+3.8% y/y).Fuel oil dipped 0.5% (-0.6% y/y/y) but natural gas prices increased a hefty 2.6% (6.8% y/y), the firmest y/y increase since June 2006.
The core finished goods PPI increased 0.3%, bit more than the 0.2% May rise but the last two increases followed two months of unchanged readings during March and April. Consensus estimates were for a 0.2% increase in June.
Finished consumer goods prices less food &amp; energy rose 0.3% (1.7% y/y) as passenger car prices rose 0.9% (-1.8% y/y) after an unchanged reading during May.
Capital equipment prices increased 0.2% (1.8% y/y) after unchanged prices during the prior two months. Most of the June increase was due to a 1.0% (0.8% y/y) in prices of light motor trucks.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070717b.jpg" width="353">
Intermediate goods prices added 0.5% to the firm 1.1% increase during May.Intermediate food prices rose a large 1.6% (15.3% y/y), suggesting future strength in finished food prices. The index excluding food &amp; energy prices rose the same 0.4% (2.7% y/y) as it did during May. 
The crude materials PPI rose 0.3% (14.9% y/y), as energy prices rose 0.6% (8.5% y/y) and food prices rose 0.5% (27.1% y/y). The core crude materials PPI fell 0.2% (10.2% y/y) as copper scrap prices fell 6.6% NSA (+9.6% y/y) and aluminum scrap prices fell 2.3% NSA (-3.3% y/y). 

<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/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Finished Goods</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>0.9%&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp; 3.2%&nbsp;</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>&nbsp;4.9%&nbsp;</td>
<td>3.6%&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>&nbsp;1.8%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>6.4%</td>
<td>&nbsp;8.0%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>&nbsp;5.5%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>&nbsp;2.0%&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;14.9%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>14.6%</td>
<td>&nbsp;17.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>&nbsp;10.1%</td>
<td>20.9%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>&nbsp;26.5%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The producer price index for finished goods fell 0.2% last month following its 0.9% rise in May. The decline compared to Consensus forecasts for a 0.1% increase and it was the first decline since January. Food prices fell 0.8% (+6.3% [...]

Lower Energy Prices Ease U.S. PPI; Core Prices Firm

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070717a.jpg" width="353">
The producer price index for finished goods fell 0.2% last month following its 0.9% rise in May. The decline compared to Consensus forecasts for a 0.1% increase and it was the first decline since January.
Food prices fell 0.8% (+6.3% y/y) after May&#39;s 0.2% dip.
Energy prices, in addition, declined a sharp 1.1% (+4.3% y/y) as gasoline prices fell 3.9% (+3.8% y/y).Fuel oil dipped 0.5% (-0.6% y/y/y) but natural gas prices increased a hefty 2.6% (6.8% y/y), the firmest y/y increase since June 2006.
The core finished goods PPI increased 0.3%, bit more than the 0.2% May rise but the last two increases followed two months of unchanged readings during March and April. Consensus estimates were for a 0.2% increase in June.
Finished consumer goods prices less food &amp; energy rose 0.3% (1.7% y/y) as passenger car prices rose 0.9% (-1.8% y/y) after an unchanged reading during May.
Capital equipment prices increased 0.2% (1.8% y/y) after unchanged prices during the prior two months. Most of the June increase was due to a 1.0% (0.8% y/y) in prices of light motor trucks.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070717b.jpg" width="353">
Intermediate goods prices added 0.5% to the firm 1.1% increase during May.Intermediate food prices rose a large 1.6% (15.3% y/y), suggesting future strength in finished food prices. The index excluding food &amp; energy prices rose the same 0.4% (2.7% y/y) as it did during May. 
The crude materials PPI rose 0.3% (14.9% y/y), as energy prices rose 0.6% (8.5% y/y) and food prices rose 0.5% (27.1% y/y). The core crude materials PPI fell 0.2% (10.2% y/y) as copper scrap prices fell 6.6% NSA (+9.6% y/y) and aluminum scrap prices fell 2.3% NSA (-3.3% y/y). 

<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/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Finished Goods</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>0.9%&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp; 3.2%&nbsp;</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>&nbsp;4.9%&nbsp;</td>
<td>3.6%&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>&nbsp;1.8%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>6.4%</td>
<td>&nbsp;8.0%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>&nbsp;5.5%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>&nbsp;2.0%&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;14.9%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>14.6%</td>
<td>&nbsp;17.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>&nbsp;10.1%</td>
<td>20.9%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>&nbsp;26.5%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Tom Moeller 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> Industrial Production Rebounded In June July 17, 2007


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070717e.jpg" width="353">
For June, industrial production rebounded 0.5% after a revised 0.1% decline during the prior month. The magnitude of the rebound matched Consensus expectations.
Little of the figures were distorted by movement in the utility or in the mining categories. As a result, factory output rose 0.5% after a revised no change in May. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070717f.jpg" width="353">
Consumer goods output surged 0.7% (1.6% y/y) led by a 2.5% (-1.7% y/y) pop in motor vehicle output. Production of computers &amp; electronics also rose a strong 1.1% (9.3% y/y) while output of furniture rose a tentative 1.2% (-4.1% y/y). To the downside was production of apparel by 2.4% (-3.4% y/y.
Production of business equipment was unchanged for the second consecutive month (3.4% y/y), held back by a 0.6% decline in output of industrial &amp; other equipment. Information processing &amp; related equipment rose 0.4% (5.7% y/y.
Capacity utilization rose to 81.7%from 81.4% in May as capacity rose 0.1% (2.1% y/y for the fifth strait month.
How Accurate Are Real-Time Estimates of Output Trends and Gaps? from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond can be found <a href="http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/economic_research/economic_quarterly/pdfs/spring2007/watson.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">INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION (SA)</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Manufacturing</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Mining</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Utilities</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
NAHB Housing Market Index Fell Again 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 17, 2007


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070717c.jpg" width="353">
The Composite Housing Market Index from the National Association of Home Builders&#39; (NAHB) fell last month to the lowest level since early 1991. At 28 for June, the index fell 6.7% from May and fell by one third from a year earlier. 
During the last twenty years there has been a 76% 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/070717d.jpg" width="353"> 
The sub-index for current sales also fell 6.5% from May (-38.3% y/y) and the sub-index covering prospective sales in the next six months fell 4.9% m/m (-23.5% y/y). 
Traffic of prospective home buyers fell 4.5% (-27.6% y/y).
The NAHB index is a diffusion index based on a survey of builders. Readings above 50 signal that more builders view conditions 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;06 </th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Housing Market Index</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>68</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Confidence Among the German Financial Community Weakens in July  
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> July 17, 2007


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070717g.jpg" width="353">
The July ZEW survey of German institutional investors and analysts revealed a sharp deterioration in the excess of those who see improvement in the economic outlook six months ahead and those who see worsening conditions. The excess in July was 10.4% compared with 20.3% in June. The historical average of optimists over pessimists is 32.8%.
The participants in the ZEW survey also expressed slightly less confidence in the current situation. The excess of optimists regarding current conditions fell to 88.2% in July from 88.7% in June, nevertheless, the confidence in the current situation is among the strongest reported over the entire history of the survey, as can be seen in the first chart.
Concerns over the rising price of oil, the strengthening of the euro and higher interest rates may have accounted for some of the weakening confidence among the financial community. Although there was some relief to the rising price of oil and strengthening of the Euro in the second quarter of this year, the price of oil has risen almost 58% from the low point of the year of January 18, to July 16 and the euro is up almost 7% over the same period. The daily prices of a barrel of Brent Crude and the dollar exchange rates of the euro for the current year are shown in the second chart. While the European Central Bank (ECB) did not raise rates at its last meeting, its base rate has risen steadily over the last 18 months from 2% in November, 2005 to 4% currently, as shown in the third chart. Moreover, the bank continues to stress that further tightening may be needed. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td><img border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070717h.jpg" width="353"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070717i.jpg" width="353"> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">GERMANY&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">July 07</th>
<th scope="col">June 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">July&nbsp; 06&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">M/M Chg&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y Chg&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">ZEW Indicator (%)</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Expectations 6 mo ahead</td>
<td>10.4</td>
<td>20.3</td>
<td>15.1</td>
<td>-9.9</td>
<td>-4.7</td>
<td>22.3</td>
<td>34.8</td>
<td>44.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Current conditions</td>
<td>88.2</td>
<td>88.7</td>
<td>23.3</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>64.9</td>
<td>18.3</td>
<td>-61.8</td>
<td>-67.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td>7/16/07</td>
<td>1/18/07</td>
<td>% Chg</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Euro/Dollar Exchange rate</td>
<td>1.38</td>
<td>1.29</td>
<td>6.98</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Price of&nbsp; Oil per bbl. Brent Crude</td>
<td>79.73</td>
<td>50.83</td>
<td>57.91</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
METI Sector Surveys Show Some Weakness in May 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert Brusca</a> July 17, 2007


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070717j.jpg" width="353">
The Industry index from METI is in a sharp decline and is lower over six months for a period of three months running. Services (the tertiary index) tend to be more stable. Their index has slowed in the past few months and even fell in May but it is growing at pace just below 2%.
The tertiary and industry index are still relatively strong in their five year context. Fixing them in the range of values they have experienced over the past five years we find that the tertiary index is in its 95Th percentile (top 5-percent). The Industrial gauge is a bit lower but resides in the 84th percentile about the top 15 percentile of its range. The percentile standing of the MFG sector is higher than we get from other surveys of Japan (NTC has the MFG sector in the bottom 30 percent of its five year range). Japan remains unconcerned about this weakness and the BoJ continues to talk of when it will go back to hiking rates. Onew BOJ board member thinks they should already have hiked them again.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
 Key Japanese Sector Surveys
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="3">Raw readings of each survey</td>
<td colspan="2">Percent of 5Yr range*</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Biz Activity (METI:Indexes)</td>
<td>May-07</td>
<td>Apr-07</td>
<td>Mar-07</td>
<td>May-07</td>
<td>Apr-07</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"> Industry</td>
<td>107.1</td>
<td>107.4</td>
<td>107.6</td>
<td>84.9%</td>
<td>86.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"> Tertiary (Services)</td>
<td>110.2</td>
<td>110.3</td>
<td>108.6</td>
<td>95.1%</td>
<td>96.1%</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>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">*100 is high; Zero is low</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070716g.jpg" width="353">
The chart on select core HICP readings violates the rule on how many lines to plot on a graph (sorry). But the clear message is that few of these are trending lower and most are trending up. Among those that have any trend lower, there is usually abysmally high inflation rate anyway (Greece and Spain, for example).
The table below presents the discernable detail on core inflation trends on data that were not available last week. The table shows that inflation is accelerating in too many countries for comfort. In the same table we slice the data into a number of 12-month periods ended in June since that is the most recent observation.
As of June 2007 inflation was accelerating in half of the select 12 EMU members. Over the past year inflation also was higher on a year/year basis in seven countries than it had been in June of 2004. Any way you look at the inflation comparisons there is a hint of inflation. And these data look at core prices excluding the direct effects of food and energy inflation. These four presentations, the chars and the table below, make it clear why the ECB remains wary about inflation forces.
Inflation is simply trending higher into many categories to be ignored and across too many EMU countries to assume that it will go down all by itself. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td><img border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070716h.jpg" width="353"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070716i.jpg" width="353"> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
Euro area Select Members: Core Inflation Yr/Yr
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td>Jun-07</td>
<td>Jun-06</td>
<td>Jun-05</td>
<td>Jun-04</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Austria</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Belgium</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Finland</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Greece</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Ireland</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Luxembourg</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">The Netherlands</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Portugal</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Spain</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">EMU Core HICP</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The chart on select core HICP readings violates the rule on how many lines to plot on a graph (sorry). But the clear message is that few of these are trending lower and most are trending up. Among those that have any trend lower, [...]

HICP Trends Show Pressure

USD/EUR exchange rate uncoupling from interest rate differential

Widespread downgrading of 2025 GDP outlook

Trade and fiscal policy uncertainty has exploded with the new administration

Much lower US electricity costs gives it a competitive advantage

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

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

US policy gyrations boosting policy uncertainty worldwide

Expected tariff hikes have boosted inflation expectations

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

US economy expected to outperform other major economies in 2025

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

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

Heavy US manufacturing states underperforming while Sun Belt states outperforming

Rising long-term yields a global phenomenon

US financial market concerns shifting from growth to inflation

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

Policy uncertainty has surged since the US national elections.

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

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

Headline US PCE inflation elevated by sticky services prices

US and global equity prices have recently diverged

US leading global upturn in economic surprises

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

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

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

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

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

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Andrew Cates

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

250501Z1.jpg

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

250501Z2.jpg

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

250501Z3.jpg

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

250501Z4.jpg

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

250501Z5.jpg

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

250501Z6.jpg

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

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

Charts of the Week: Tariff Truce, Tenuous Trust

250501F20.jpg

250501G20.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

250501H20.jpg

250501I20.jpg

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

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Fall in April

250501J5.jpg

250501K5.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

250501L5.jpg

250501M5.jpg

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

U.S. ISM Manufacturing Index Indicates Contraction in April

Winnie Tapasanun

250501N.jpg

250501O.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

250501P.jpg

250501Q.jpg

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

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

Carol Stone, CBE

250501A8.jpg

250501B8.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

250501C8.jpg

250501D8.jpg

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

Economy in Brief: July 2007

Jump to:

Mortgage Applications Up Slightly

Total Housing Starts Uptick All Multi-Family, Single-Family Down

METI Sector Surveys Show Some Weakness in May

Confidence Among the German Financial Community Weakens in July

NAHB Housing Market Index Fell Again

Lower Energy Prices Ease U.S. PPI; Core Prices Firm

Lower Energy Prices Ease U.S. PPI; Core Prices Firm

HICP Trends Show Pressure