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/030908b.jpg" width="353">
Following the modest improvements in Japanese consumer sentiment in the second quarter and the moderately improved business expectations for the third quarter expressed in the latest Tankan Survey, the Economy Watchers Survey of Future Conditions reported that its diffusion index rose 3.4% from July to August to 48.9. While all of these indicators remain at relatively low levels, their recent trends are encouraging.
The Economy Watchers index is a relatively new one, starting in January, 2000. At that time, the index was based on the replies of 800 monitors in six regions of Japan. In October, 2000 the number of monitors was increased to 1500 and the coverage was extended nationwide. Since August 2001, the number of monitors is 2050.
Over its short existence the index has tended to anticipate movements in Japan&#39;s Industrial Production Index.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"></th>
<th scope="col"></th>
<th scope="col"></th>
<th scope="col"></th>
 Percent Change
<th scope="col"></th>
<th scope="col"></th>
<th scope="col"></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Economy Watchers Survey</td>
<td>Aug 03</td>
<td>July 03</td>
<td>Aug 02</td>
<td>M/M</td>
<td>Y/Y</td>
<td>2002</td>
<td>2001</td>
<td>2000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Future Conditions</td>
<td>48.9</td>
<td>46.8</td>
<td>46.1</td>
<td>4.49</td>
<td>6.07</td>
<td>43.0</td>
<td>39.7</td>
<td>51.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Current Conditions</td>
<td>46.9</td>
<td>44.9</td>
<td>43.6</td>
<td>3.34</td>
<td>6.42</td>
<td>40.4</td>
<td>35.5</td>
<td>49.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Following the modest improvements in Japanese consumer sentiment in the second quarter and the moderately improved business expectations for the third quarter expressed in the latest Tankan Survey, the Economy Watchers Survey of [...]

Another Japanese Leading Indicator Edges Up

Tom Moeller

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/030908a.jpg" width="353">
The foreign exchange value of the US dollar against major currencies began the most recent decline before the release of the weak August jobs report.
On August 22nd the dollar was up more than 5% from the June low as data suggested improvement in the US economy. A 0.7% decline on Friday capped a succession of declines which have now totaled 1.7%.
The Euro had fallen roughly 8% during the dollar&#39;s ascent this Summer. On Friday it gained back 1.6%, its greatest one day advance in over a year. The Euro&#39;s value against the dollar is up by one third since early 2000.
Against the Canadian dollar the US currency has suffered similar declines, down 1.5% recently and by roughly 12% since early last year.
Versus the Japanese Yen, the dollar has traded more narrowly since the middle of last year. That followed dollar declines early in the year which came to over 10%.
Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis ask &quot;Is the Current Account Deficit Weighing on the Dollar?&quot; <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/iet/20030801/cover.pdf"> here</a>.

</body>
</html>

The foreign exchange value of the US dollar against major currencies began the most recent decline before the release of the weak August jobs report. On August 22nd the dollar was up more than 5% from the June low as data suggested [...]

US Dollar Down Even Before the August Employment Report

Carol Stone, CBE

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/030905c.jpg" width="353">
Canadian labor market conditions softened again in August, extending July&#146;s deterioration. Employment fell slightly, by 19,000, and the unemployment rate rose 0.2% to 8.0%, its highest since December 2001. In July, the employment decline, which totaled 13,300, was concentrated among youth aged 15-24. While that age-group saw a further decrease in August &#150; 2,600 &#150; the bulk of the fall was seen by adults, which went down 16,500, erasing a gain in July.
Among industries, the job loss was largest in &quot;management, administrative and other support&quot; (-23,800) and in &quot;health care and social assistance&quot; (-17,600). In contrast, jobs increased in public administration (13,500), construction (10,600), and accommodation and food services (8,500).
Last month in this space, we noted that employment in Canada has been stronger recently than in the US. While the US has had a so-called &quot;jobless recovery&quot; since November 2001, employment in Canada merely flattened during that US recession and climbed to a new peak in subsequent months, reaching an all-time high in June. The divergent behavior of US and Canada employment conditions is seen in the accompanying chart, which shows the employment ratios for each country. The data coverage is slightly different, with the Canadian labor force defined as those aged 15 and over, while US data begin at age 16. This detail hardly alters the story, though, in which Canadian jobs recovered vigorously during the mid- to late-1990s and again after the US recession, while the US has seen flat employment (by the labor force definition) during the post-November 2001 recovery, accompanied by a noticeable decrease in the employment/population ratio.
[As in the US, Canadian statistics officials explained prominently that the power outage in mid-August, afflicting Ontario, hurt hours worked severely, but did not affect the number of workers employed. Indeed, total hours worked fell 3.1% in August, the largest month-on-month decline in the 27-year history of the labor force data.]

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"></th>
<th scope="col">August 2003</th>
<th scope="col">July 2003</th>
<th scope="col">June 2003</th>
<th scope="col">Year/ Year</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Change in Total Employment (thousands)</td>
<td>-19.0</td>
<td>-13.3</td>
<td>+48.8</td>
<td>+48.8</td>
<td colspan="3">Dec/Dec % Change</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">3.7%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
<td>8.0%</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>7.5% (Aug.2002)</td>
<td colspan="3">Annual Average</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">7.6%</td>
<td>7.2%</td>
<td>6.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Canadian labor market conditions softened again in August, extending Julys deterioration. Employment fell slightly, by 19,000, and the unemployment rate rose 0.2% to 8.0%, its highest since December 2001. In July, the employment [...]

Canadian Employment Down, Unemployment Up in August

<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/030905a.jpg" width="353">
Nonfarm payrolls fell 93,000 in August and the previously reported declines in June &amp; July were deepened. Consensus estimates had been for a modest 15,000 worker rise in August payrolls. It was the seventh monthly decline in payrolls this year. Since December payrolls have fallen 437,000 (0.3%).
Declines in manufacturing sector payrolls continued. They have fallen in every month since July 2000 and are down 2.729 million (15.8%) during that period. Service producing jobs fell 67,000 (-0.1%) for the fifth decline this year. Government sector jobs fell 26,000 and declines were widespread in other service industries.
From the separate household survey, the unemployment rate fell modestly to 6.1% versus expectations for no change. Employment rose 147,000 (0.6% y/y) and the labor force fell 10,000 (1.0% y/y) following the sharp 556,000 July drop.
The workweek was unchanged at 33.6 hours. The decline in employment and an unchanged workweek pulled the index of aggregate hours worked in private industries down 0.1% following a 0.4% decline in July. So far in 3Q, hours worked are down 0.5% from 2Q during which they declined by a similar amount.
The one-month diffusion index for private nonfarm payrolls fell to 38.5, near the cycle low. This low breadth of change measure bodes poorly for a near term pickup in hiring activity.
Average hourly earnings rose a less than expected 0.1%, the slowest increase since April.
New research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York titled &quot;Has Structural Change Contributed to a Jobless Recovery?&quot; can be found <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/rmaghome/curr_iss/ci9-8.html"> here</a> .

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EB/@EB01/@EB01.HTM"> Employment</a></th>
<th scope="col">Aug </th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Payroll Employment</td>
<td>-93,000</td>
<td>-49,000</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>-44,000</td>
<td>-59,000</td>
<td>-4.2%</td>
<td>-6.9%</td>
<td>-4.8%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Average Weekly Hours</td>
<td>33.6</td>
<td>33.6</td>
<td>33.9</td>
<td>33.9</td>
<td>34.0</td>
<td>34.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Average Hourly Earnings</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Gasoline Prices At a Record, Crude Oil Prices Down 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> September 5, 2003


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/030905b.jpg" width="353">
Retail gasoline prices were about unchanged last week at a record $1.74 per gallon, up 25.3% y/y.
Lean inventories of gasoline, supply disruptions at refineries due to the August Power Blackout and hot summer temperatures have contributed to the rise in gasoline prices.
Crude oil prices have moved in the other direction. The price of West Texas Intermediate crude was $29.43 per barrel last week (5.9% y/y) versus a June high near $32.00 and a March high near $37.00. Prices have fallen slightly further this week.
Wholesale natural gas prices were roughly stable last week at $5.04/mmbtu, down from the cold-weather spike over $12.00 in late February but still up by more than half from last year.
For the latest Short Term Energy Outlook from the US Department of Energy click <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/weekly/@W4/@W403/@W40303/@W40303.HTM"> US Retail Gasoline Prices</a></th>
<th scope="col">04/07/03</th>
<th scope="col">12/30/02</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">All Formulations ($/Gal.)</td>
<td>$1.63</td>
<td>$1.44</td>
<td>15.4%</td>
<td>$1.34</td>
<td>$1.42</td>
<td>$1.48</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Nonfarm payrolls fell 93,000 in August and the previously reported declines in June & July were deepened. Consensus estimates had been for a modest 15,000 worker rise in August payrolls. It was the seventh monthly decline in payrolls [...]

U.S. Nonfarm Payrolls Fell Unexpectedly

<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/030904f.jpg" width="353">
Labor market data for Germany and Italy show employment flat to down slightly in the two countries, but modestly divergent trends in the unemployment rates. Employment in Germany continues to drift lower, but looks to be stabilizing during the spring after a protracted decline. The last month to show an increase was November 2001, and the peak was 39,958 thousand in May 2001. In Italy, employment in large industrial companies continues to decrease, but service sector jobs turned higher beginning last November and have climbed gradually through June.
Correspondingly, unemployment is inching downward in Italy, and through June was extending a decreasing trend that began in early 1999. Germans, by contrast, are likely pleased that their unemployment rate seems to have stopped rising. From May 2001 through April this year, the rate was up 1.5 percentage points to 10.7%, but after a down-tick in May has been flat at 10.6% for the last four months. Perhaps the stabilization of both employment and unemployment in Germany point to better labor market conditions ahead.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Seasonally Adjusted</th>
<th scope="col">August &nbsp;2003</th>
<th scope="col">July &nbsp;2003</th>
<th scope="col">June 2003</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;Q2 &nbsp;2003</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;Q1 &nbsp;2003</th>
<th scope="col">Year-Ago &nbsp;Period</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany: Unemployment Rate</td>
<td>10.6%</td>
<td>10.6%</td>
<td>10.6%</td>
<td>10.6%</td>
<td>10.5%</td>
<td>9.7% (Aug 2002)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany: Employment (thous)</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>38,084</td>
<td>38,106</td>
<td>38,236</td>
<td>38,704 (June 2002)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Italy: Unemployment Rate</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
<td>8.9%</td>
<td>9.0% (2nd Qtr 2002)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy: Employment in Industry*</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>90.7</td>
<td>90.8</td>
<td>91.6</td>
<td>93.1 (June 2002)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Italy: Employment in Services*</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>98.8</td>
<td>98.7</td>
<td>98.7</td>
<td>98.5 (June 2002)</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Labor market data for Germany and Italy show employment flat to down slightly in the two countries, but modestly divergent trends in the unemployment rates. Employment in Germany continues to drift lower, but looks to be stabilizing [...]

Labor Markets Stabilize in Germany and Italy

<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/030904f.jpg" width="353">
Labor market data for Germany and Italy show employment flat to down slightly in the two countries, but modestly divergent trends in the unemployment rates. Employment in Germany continues to drift lower, but looks to be stabilizing during the spring after a protracted decline. The last month to show an increase was November 2001, and the peak was 39,958 thousand in May 2001. In Italy, employment in large industrial companies continues to decrease, but service sector jobs turned higher beginning last November and have climbed gradually through June.
Correspondingly, unemployment is inching downward in Italy, and through June was extending a decreasing trend that began in early 1999. Germans, by contrast, are likely pleased that their unemployment rate seems to have stopped rising. From May 2001 through April this year, the rate was up 1.5 percentage points to 10.7%, but after a down-tick in May has been flat at 10.6% for the last four months. Perhaps the stabilization of both employment and unemployment in Germany point to better labor market conditions ahead.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Seasonally Adjusted</th>
<th scope="col">August2003</th>
<th scope="col">July&nbsp;2003</th>
<th scope="col">June2003</th>
<th scope="col">Q2&nbsp;2003</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;Q1&nbsp;2003</th>
<th scope="col">Year-Ago &nbsp;Period</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany: Unemployment Rate</td>
<td>10.6%</td>
<td>10.6%</td>
<td>10.6%</td>
<td>10.6%</td>
<td>10.5%</td>
<td>9.7% (Aug 2002)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany: Employment (thous)</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>38,084</td>
<td>38,106</td>
<td>38,236</td>
<td>38,704 (June 2002)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany: Employment (thous)</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
<td>8.9%</td>
<td>9.0% (2nd Qtr 2002)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy: Employment in Industry*</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>90.7</td>
<td>90.8</td>
<td>91.6</td>
<td>93.1 (June 2002)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Italy: Employment in Services*</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>n.a.</td>
<td>98.8</td>
<td>98.7</td>
<td>98.7</td>
<td>98.5 (June 2002)</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>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/030904a.jpg" width="353">
Light vehicle sales rose more than expected in August to a 19.0M unit annual rate. The 9.6% gain versus July contrasted with Consensus expectations for a m/m decline to 17.0M.
Sales of light trucks were the standout last month rising 12.8% m/m to a near-record selling rate of 10.75M units.
Car sales rose as well, up 5.7% for the third consecutive respectable monthly gain.
Sales of domestic light vehicles jumped 10.3% to a 15.5M unit selling rate on the strength of a 14.0% rise in light truck sales.
Imported vehicle sales rose a lesser 6.3% and captured 18.4% of the US market.

<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/@ED/@ED09/@ED0901/@ED0901.HTM">Light Vehicle Sales (SAAR, Mil.Units)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Aug</th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>19.00</td>
<td>17.34</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>16.81</td>
<td>17.26</td>
<td>17.40</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Autos</td>
<td>8.26</td>
<td>7.81</td>
<td>-5.1%</td>
<td>8.07</td>
<td>8.48</td>
<td>8.83</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Light Trucks</td>
<td>10.75</td>
<td>9.53</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>8.74</td>
<td>8.78</td>
<td>8.56</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
ISM Nonmanufacturing Index Stable & Strong 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> September 4, 2003


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/030904d.jpg" width="353">
The Institute for Supply Management reported that the August index of activity in the nonmanufacturing sector was unchanged from July which was the highest level in the series&#39; brief seven year history. At 65.1 the index beat Consensus expectations for a decline to 62.0.
The seasonally adjusted employment index improved to 51.0, the fourth month above 50 this year. Since the series&#39; inception there has been an 85% correlation between the level of the ISM nonmanufacturing employment index and the y/y change in payroll employment in the service producing and construction industries.
The orders index improved to 67.6, a record high.
Business activity for the nonmanufacturing sector is a question separate from the subgroups mentioned above. In contrast, the NAPM manufacturing sector composite index weights the components.
The seasonally adjusted prices index rose to 55.7, an improvement from the recession lows in the low 40s.
ISM surveys more than 370 purchasing managers in more than 62 industries including construction, law firms, hospitals, government and retailers. The nonmanufacturing survey dates only to July 1997, therefore its seasonal adjustment should be viewed tentatively. 

<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/@EF/@EF03/@EF03.HTM">ISM Nonmanufacturing Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">Aug</th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Business Activity Index</td>
<td>65.1</td>
<td>65.1</td>
<td>51.9</td>
<td>55.1</td>
<td>49.0</td>
<td>59.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Index</td>
<td>55.7</td>
<td>50.6</td>
<td>54.6</td>
<td>53.9</td>
<td>51.6</td>
<td>63.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Strong U.S. Productivity Revised Up for 2nd Quarter 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> September 4, 2003


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/030904c.jpg" width="353">
Nonfarm labor productivity growth last quarter was revised up to 6.8% from an already strong 5.7% reported last month. Consensus expectations had been for an upward revision to 6.2% growth.
The upward revision led to a revision of the initially reported 2.1% decline in unit labor costs to a 2.8% decline. It was the sixth decline in unit labor costs over the last eight quarters. During that period unit labor costs are down 3.5%. Compensation growth was revised up slightly for 2Q to a 3.8% rate.
The upward revision to productivity stemmed from an upward revision to output growth, now pegged at 4.4% (versus a preliminary 3.4%). That was accompanied by a 2.3% decline (about unrevised) in hours of all persons (employment times hours). Since peaking in three years ago, hours worked have fallen 5.5%.
Productivity in the nonfinancial corporate sector, a figure derived from the income side of the National Income &amp; Product Accounts, surged at an 8.1% annual rate (4.8% y/y). That was the fastest rate of growth since 4Q 2001 and the second fastest growth rate since 1975. It drove down unit labor costs at a 3.8% rate (-1.1% y/y).
Manufacturing sector productivity growth in 2Q was revised down slightly to 3.7% (3.5% y/y). Unit labor costs rose 1.5% (0.8% y/y), revised up slightly.

<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/@EC/@EC02/@EC02.HTM">Nonfarm Business Sector</a> (SAAR)</th>
<th scope="col">2Q &#39;03 Revised</th>
<th scope="col">1Q &#39;03</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Output per Hour</td>
<td>6.8%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Compensation</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unit Labor Costs</td>
<td>-2.8%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>-2.4%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Initial Claims for Jobless Insurance Above 400,000 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> September 4, 2003


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/030904b.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for jobless insurance rose to 413,000 last week and the prior week&#39;s level was revised up slightly to 398,000. Consensus expectations had been for claims of 390,000.
The four-week moving average of initial claims rose to 401,500 (+0.9% y/y), the first time above the 400,000 threshold since late July.
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance rose by 24,000 for the third consecutive weekly gain but the prior week&#39;s gain was revised down to only 9,000.
The insured rate of unemployment held steady at 2.9% where it&#39;s been for six weeks.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">8/30/03</th>
<th scope="col">8/23/03</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>413.0</td>
<td>398.0</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>404.3</td>
<td>406.0</td>
<td>299.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>3,663</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>3,575</td>
<td>3,022</td>
<td>2,114</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Factory Orders Up Further in July 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> September 4, 2003


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/030904e.jpg" width="353">
Factory orders jumped another 1.6% in July following a 1.9% pop in June. Strong orders for nondurable goods, up 2.4%, drove the gain. The rise reflected higher orders for petroleum products but also sharp gains in orders for chemicals &amp; plastics. Durable goods orders rose 1.0%, unrevised from the advance report.
Nondurable goods orders equal shipments in this report on manufacturing sector activity.
Manufacturing inventories fell 0.5% in July for the third consecutive monthly decline. Prior months&#39; figures were revised. The ISM inventory index in August fell to 42.5 suggesting further decumulation last month.
Declines in inventories were widespread.
Factory shipments jumped 2.5% (1.6% y/y). Less the transportation sector shipments rose 2.2% (3.7% y/y. Shipments of computers and electronic products have been strong, up 7.3% 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/@ED/@ED01/@ED0101/@ED01016/@ED01016.HTM">Factory Survey</a> (NAICS)</th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2001</th>
<th scope="col">2000</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Inventories</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
<td>-6.1%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">New Orders</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>-1.9%</td>
<td>-6.7%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Shipments</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-5.4%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Light vehicle sales rose more than expected in August to a 19.0M unit annual rate. The 9.6% gain versus July contrasted with Consensus expectations for a m/m decline to 17.0M. Sales of light trucks were the standout last month rising [...]

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Surged

<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/030903e.jpg" width="353">
Retail sales in Australia rose 0.8% in July, month-to-month on a seasonally adjusted basis; it was the second strong month in succession and marks the continuation of a pick-up that began in March. The final months of 2002 and beginning of 2003 had seen distinct weakness. Widely monthly volatility in these data mean that Australians frequently headline a &quot;trend-cycle&quot; calculation, which has registered its fourth month at 0.7%, having bottomed last December at 0.2%.
The July performance was driven by good sales gains at food stores, household goods retailers (furniture and appliances), recreation outlets, and restaurants and other hospitality centers. Department and clothing stores, by contrast, saw their sales &#150; better known as &quot;turnover&quot; in Australia &#150; decline in the month.
These Australian retail sales data exclude motor vehicle dealers but include such service outlets as hair salons. Total retail sales accounted for 38.5% of household consumption expenditures in the second quarter; this seems remarkably similar to the comparable US &quot;retail sales excluding motor vehicle dealers&quot; measure, which absorbed 37.2% of US PCE (all in current prices) in the same period.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Australia: Retail Sales</th>
<th scope="col">July 2003</th>
<th scope="col">June 2003</th>
<th scope="col">May 2003</th>
<th scope="col">Year/-Year</th>
December/December
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2002</td>
<td>2001</td>
<td>2000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Seasonally Adjusted*</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>7.3</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>6.7</td>
<td>3.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Trend/Cycle Calculation</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>5.8</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>5.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Retail sales in Australia rose 0.8% in July, month-to-month on a seasonally adjusted basis; it was the second strong month in succession and marks the continuation of a pick-up that began in March. The final months of 2002 and [...]

Australian Retail Sales Higher

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

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: September 2003

Jump to:

Another Japanese Leading Indicator Edges Up

US Dollar Down Even Before the August Employment Report

Canadian Employment Down, Unemployment Up in August

U.S. Nonfarm Payrolls Fell Unexpectedly

Labor Markets Stabilize in Germany and Italy

Labor Markets Stabilize in Germany and Italy

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Surged

Australian Retail Sales Higher