Tom Moeller

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 

 <a href="/comment/200421j.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200421j.png"></a>
	 <a href="/comment/200421k.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200421k.png"></a>

&bull; Existing home sales near 2019 low as coronavirus sets in.
&bull; Sales decline around the country.
&bull; Prices improved before quarantine.

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that
sales of existing homes during March declined 8.5% (+0.8% y/y) to 5.270 million
(AR) from 5.760 million in February, revised from 5.770 million. It was the
lowest level of sales since April of last year. The Action Economics Forecast
Survey expected March sales of 5.30 million.

The median price of all existing homes sold increased 3.8% (NSA,
8.0% y/y) to $280,600 following a 1.6% February increase. The average sales
price improved 3.3% last month (6.2% y/y) to $316,000. These price data are not
seasonally adjusted.

Existing home sales weakened around the country in March. In
the West, sales fell 13.6% (-0.9% y/y) to 1.080 million and reversed the
increase in February. Sales in the South declined 9.1% (+0.9% y/y) to 2.290
million, the lowest level since November. In the Northeast, sales fell 7.1%
(-3.0% y/y) to 650,000, roughly five-year low. Sales in the Midwest were off
3.1% (+4.2% y/y) to 1.250 million, the lowest level since May of last year.

Sales of existing single-family homes weakened 8.1% (+1.3%
y/y) to 4.740 million units and reversed February's rise. Sales of condos and
co-ops plunged 11.7% (-3.6% y/y) to 530,000 units, the lowest level
since July 2012.

The number of homes on the market decreased 10.2% y/y, but
rose seasonally in recent months. The months' supply of homes on the market
improved m/m to 3.4 but compared to 3.8 one year earlier. These inventory
figures date back to 1999.

The data on existing home sales, prices and affordability are
compiled by the National Association of Realtors and can be found in Haver's USECON
database. The regional price, affordability and inventory data are available in
the REALTOR database. The expectations figure is from the Action
Economics Forecast Survey, reported in the AS1REPNA database.

<a href="/comment/200421l.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200421l.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/200421m.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200421m.png"></a>

<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Existing Home Sales (SAAR,
 000s)</th>
 <th scope="col" >Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" >Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" >Jan</th>
 <th scope="col" >Mar Y/Y %</th>
 <th scope="col" >2019</th>
 <th scope="col" >2018</th>
 <th scope="col" >2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Total Sales</td>
 <td>5,270</td>
 <td>5,760</td>
 <td>5,420</td>
 <td>0.8</td>
 <td>5,330</td>
 <td>5,341</td>
 <td>5,531</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="even">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp; Northeast</td>
 <td>650</td>
 <td>700</td>
 <td>730</td>
 <td>-3.0</td>
 <td>687</td>
 <td>689</td>
 <td>735</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp; Midwest</td>
 <td>1,250</td>
 <td>1,290</td>
 <td>1,280</td>
 <td>4.2</td>
 <td>1,248</td>
 <td>1,265</td>
 <td>1,301</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="even">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp; South</td>
 <td>2,290</td>
 <td>2,520</td>
 <td>2,350</td>
 <td>0.9</td>
 <td>2,281</td>
 <td>2,246</td>
 <td>2,270</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp; West</td>
 <td>1,080</td>
 <td>1,250</td>
 <td>1,060</td>
 <td>-0.9</td>
 <td>1,115</td>
 <td>1,141</td>
 <td>1,225</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="even">
 <td class="firstcol" >Single-Family Sales</td>
 <td>4,740</td>
 <td>5,160</td>
 <td>4,820</td>
 <td>1.3</td>
 <td>4,754</td>
 <td>4,742</td>
 <td>4,907</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Median Price Total ($, NSA)</td>
 <td>280,600</td>
 <td>270,400</td>
 <td>266,200</td>
 <td>8.0</td>
 <td>269,783</td>
 <td>257,267</td>
 <td>245,950</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
 </table>
 
 </body></html>

• Existing home sales near 2019 low as coronavirus sets in. • Sales decline around the country. • Prices improved before quarantine. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that sales of existing homes during March [...]

U.S. Existing Home Sales Pull Back but Prices Rise

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 

<a href="/comment/200421f.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200421f.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/200421g.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200421g.png"></a>

&bull; New orders &amp; shipments turn negative.
&bull; Employment decline weakens wages.
&bull; Prices paid fall sharply.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported that its
Nonmanufacturing Business Index of current activity at the company level dropped
to -82.5 during April after weakening to -12.8 in March. The index of expected
general activity similarly remained negative at -24.5.

Components of the company general activity index were all
weak this month. New orders figures collapsed to -67.2 as only 0.3% of firms
reported improved new orders while a greatly increased 68% reported a decline.
The sales or revenue series fell m/m to -87.9. The index of unfilled orders also
went negative but the inventories measure rose slightly.

The labor market measures unraveled in April. The full-time
permanent employment measure fell to -47.5, indicating a record pace of job
cutbacks. A greatly lessened 4% of firms reported increased hiring while a
surging 52% reported a decline. Part-time/temporary employee hiring again was
pulled back. The average workweek reading similarly dove. The wages &amp;
benefits measure turned negative.

Pricing power evaporated. The index of prices paid fell to
-0.4, down from 34.7 late last year. A greatly lessened 13% of firms reported
higher prices while a near-record 14% paid less. The prices received index fell
well into negative territory.

The capital expenditure measures collapsed. Both the physical
plant and equipment &amp; software expenditure readings turned negative. Seven
percent of respondents raised outlays on equipment while 48% lowered them.

The Philadelphia Fed figures are diffusion indexes which are
calculated by subtracting the percent of respondents reporting decreases in
business activity from those reporting improvement. So, readings above zero
indicate more positive than negative responses. These indexes have a good
correlation with growth in the series covered. The data are available in Haver's
SURVEYS database.

<a href="/comment/200421h.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200421h.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/200421i.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200421i.png"></a>

<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="1376">Federal Reserve Bank of
 Philadelphia: Nonmanufacturing Business Outlook Survey (Diffusion Index,
 SA)</th>
 <th scope="col" >Apr</th>
 <th scope="col" >Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" >Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" >Apr'19</th>
 <th scope="col" >2019</th>
 <th scope="col" >2018</th>
 <th scope="col" >2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">General Activity - Company</td>
 <td>-82.5</td>
 <td>-12.8</td>
 <td>36.1</td>
 <td>34.5</td>
 <td>23.4</td>
 <td>33.5</td>
 <td>27.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; New Orders</td>
 <td>-67.2</td>
 <td>-16.4</td>
 <td>28.1</td>
 <td>21.0</td>
 <td>16.7</td>
 <td>24.2</td>
 <td>19.1</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Sales or Revenue</td>
 <td>-87.9</td>
 <td>-4.9</td>
 <td>39.8</td>
 <td>34.0</td>
 <td>24.0</td>
 <td>30.8</td>
 <td>27.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Inventories</td>
 <td>1.9</td>
 <td>-1.7</td>
 <td>5.6</td>
 <td>2.0</td>
 <td>4.0</td>
 <td>5.2</td>
 <td>3.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Number of Full-Time Permanent
 Employees</td>
 <td>-47.5</td>
 <td>-1.7</td>
 <td>21.5</td>
 <td>18.7</td>
 <td>20.9</td>
 <td>18.1</td>
 <td>14.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Part-Time/Temporary/Contract
 Employees</td>
 <td>-58.9</td>
 <td>-11.2</td>
 <td>10.4</td>
 <td>23.1</td>
 <td>14.6</td>
 <td>15.5</td>
 <td>12.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Prices Paid</td>
 <td>-0.4</td>
 <td>6.0</td>
 <td>21.3</td>
 <td>26.4</td>
 <td>25.0</td>
 <td>28.3</td>
 <td>21.4</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Wage &amp; Benefit Costs</td>
 <td>-35.7</td>
 <td>26.6</td>
 <td>30.7</td>
 <td>37.0</td>
 <td>39.4</td>
 <td>40.1</td>
 <td>33.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">Expected General Activity - Company</td>
 <td>-24.5</td>
 <td>-16.3</td>
 <td>44.2</td>
 <td>43.4</td>
 <td>41.7</td>
 <td>49.9</td>
 <td>49.8</td>
 </tr>
	 </tbody>
	 </table>
	 
</body></html>

• New orders & shipments turn negative. • Employment decline weakens wages. • Prices paid fall sharply. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported that its Nonmanufacturing Business Index of current activity at the company [...]

Philadelphia Fed Nonmanufacturing Business Activity Collapses

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 

 <a href="/comment/200421a.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200421a.png"></a>
	 <a href="/comment/200421b.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200421b.png"></a>

	 &bull; Crude oil prices slid lower last week and dropped further yesterday.
			

			&bull; Gasoline prices fall as drivers stay off the road.
			

			&bull; Natural gas prices ease.
 

The spot price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil
weakened to $20.10 (-68.5% y/y) per barrel last week from an average $24.40 one
week earlier. It was the lowest price since February 2002. Yesterday, prices actually turned negative as
oil producers paid buyers to take oil over fears of continued weak demand and a
lack of storage. The price of Brent crude oil declined to an average of $29.18
last week. The price has fallen from a $67.38 high averaged in the last week of
December. Yesterday, the price was $25.93.

Retail gasoline prices declined to $1.81 per gallon
(-36.2% y/y) in the week ended April 20 from $1.85 per gallon in the previous
week. Prices remained below their May 2019 peak of $2.90 per gallon. Haver
Analytics adjusts the gasoline price series for regular seasonal variation. The
seasonally adjusted price fell to $1.73 per gallon from $1.79.

The average price of natural gas edged lower to $1.72/mmbtu
(-34.5% y/y) last week after rising to $1.77 in the prior week. They remained
below the peak of $2.81/mmbtu early in November. Yesterday, the price was $1.86/mmbtu.

Reduced oil &amp; product prices reflect a collapse in demand
and a rise in supply. In the four weeks ending April 10, gasoline demand
declined 31.6% y/y, while total petroleum product demand fell 18.5% y/y. Crude
oil input to refineries declined 10.7% y/y in the past four weeks. At the same
time, gasoline inventories rose 15.0% y/y and inventories of all
petroleum products increased 4.9% y/y.

These data are reported by the U.S. Department of Energy. The
price data can be found in Haver's WEEKLY and DAILY databases.
Greater detail on prices, as well as the demand, production and inventory data,
along with regional breakdowns, are in OILWKLY.

<a href="/comment/200421c.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200421c.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/200421d.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200421d.png"></a>

<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Weekly Energy Prices</th>
 <th>04/20/20</th>
 <th>04/13/20</th>
 <th>04/06/20</th>
 <th>Y/Y %</th>
 <th>2019</th>
 <th>2018</th>
 <th>2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Retail Gasoline ($ per Gallon Regular,
 Monday Price, End of Period)</td>
 <td>1.81</td>
 <td>1.85</td>
 <td>1.92</td>
 <td>-36.2</td>
 <td>2.57</td>
 <td>2.27</td>
 <td>2.47</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Light Sweet Crude Oil, WTI ($ per bbl,
 Previous Week's Average)</td>
 <td>20.10</td>
 <td>24.40</td>
 <td>21.72</td>
 <td>-68.5</td>
 <td>56.91</td>
 <td>64.95</td>
 <td>50.87</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Natural Gas ($/mmbtu, LA, Previous
 Week's Average)</td>
 <td>1.72</td>
 <td>1.77</td>
 <td>1.62</td>
 <td>-34.5</td>
 <td>2.57</td>
 <td>3.18</td>
 <td>2.99</td>
 </tr>
	 </tbody>
	 </table>
	 
</body></html>

• Crude oil prices slid lower last week and dropped further yesterday. • Gasoline prices fall as drivers stay off the road. • Natural gas prices ease. The spot price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil weakened to $20.10 (-68.5% y/y) [...]

U.S. Petroleum Prices Plunge as Demand Dries Up

<html>

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<title>Chicago Fed National Activity Index Suggests Growth Picked Up in February
by Tom Moeller&nbsp; March 23</title>
</head>

<body>

 

• Crude oil prices slid lower last week and dropped
further yesterday.
• Gasoline prices fall as drivers stay off the road.
• Natural gas prices ease. 
The spot price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil
weakened to $20.10 (-68.5% y/y) per barrel last week from an average $24.40 one
week earlier. It was the lowest price since February 2002. Yesterday, prices
actually turned negative as oil producers paid buyers to take oil over fears
that storage could run out in May. The price of Brent crude oil declined to an
average of $29.18 last week. The price has fallen from a $67.38 high averaged in
the last week of December. Yesterday, the price was $25.93.
Retail gasoline prices declined to $1.81 per gallon
(-36.2% y/y) in the week ended April 20 from $1.85 per gallon in the previous
week. Prices remained below their May 2019 peak of $2.90 per gallon. Haver
Analytics adjusts the gasoline price series for regular seasonal variation. The
seasonally adjusted price fell to $1.73 per gallon from $1.79.
The average price of natural gas edged lower to $1.72/mmbtu
(-34.5% y/y) last week after rising to $1.77 in the prior week. They remained
below the peak of $2.81/mmbtu early in November. Yesterday, the price was
$1.86/mmbtu.
Reduced oil &amp; product prices reflect a collapse in demand
and a rise in supply. In the four weeks ending April 10, gasoline demand
declined 31.6% y/y, while total petroleum product demand fell 18.5% y/y. Crude
oil input to refineries declined 10.7% y/y in the past four weeks. At the same
time,&nbsp; gasoline inventories rose 15.0% y/y and inventories of all
petroleum products increased 4.9% y/y. 
These data are reported by the U.S. Department of Energy. The
price data can be found in Haver's WEEKLY and DAILY databases.
Greater detail on prices, as well as the demand, production and inventory data,
along with regional breakdowns, are in OILWKLY.
<table width="1871" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="1046">Weekly Energy Prices</th>
 <th width="117">04/20/20</th>
 <th width="117">04/13/20</th>
 <th width="117">04/06/20</th>
 <th width="117">Y/Y %</th>
 <th width="117">2019</th>
 <th width="118">2018</th>
 <th width="118">2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="1046">Retail Gasoline ($ per Gallon Regular,
 Monday Price, End of Period)</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.81</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.85</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.92</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">-36.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">2.57</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">2.27</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">2.47</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1046">Light Sweet Crude Oil, WTI ($ per bbl,
 Previous Week's Average)</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">20.10</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">24.40</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">21.72</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">-68.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">56.91</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">64.95</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">50.87</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="1046">Natural Gas ($/mmbtu, LA, Previous
 Week's Average)</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.72</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.77</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.62</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">-34.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">2.57</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">3.18</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">2.99</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;
Philadelphia Fed Nonmanufacturing Business Activity
Collapses 
by <a href="http://www.haver.com/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;April 21, 2020
• New orders &amp; shipments fall sharply.
• Employment decline weakens wages.
• Prices paid decline.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported that its
Nonmanufacturing Business Index of current general activity at the company level
dropped to -12.8 during March after rising to 36.1 in February. The index of
expected general activity similarly declined to -16.3 from 44.2.
Components of the company general activity index were
uniformly weak this month. New orders figures collapsed to -16.4. A reduced 17%
of firms reported improved new orders while a greatly increased 33% reported a
decline. The sales or revenue series fell m/m to -4.9, the lowest level in over
four years. The index of unfilled orders improved but the inventories measure
cratered.
The labor market measures retreated in March. The full-time
permanent employment measure fell to -1.7, indicating job cutbacks at the
greatest rate since 2012. A greatly lessened 19% of firms reported increased
hiring while a surging 20% reported a decline. Part-time/temporary employee
hiring also weakened sharply to a roughly five-year low. The average workweek
reading similarly collapsed as did the wages &amp; benefits measure.
Pricing power was constrained. The index of prices paid fell
to 6.0, down from 34.7 just three months ago. A greatly lessened 15% of firms
reported higher prices while an increased nine percent indicated a decline, the
most in five years. Prices received also were significantly weakened.
The capital expenditure measures fell sharply. The physical
plant measure declined to the lowest level since October. The equipment &amp;
software expenditure reading also weakened to a four-month low.
The Philadelphia Fed figures are diffusion indexes which are
calculated by subtracting the percent of respondents reporting decreases in
business activity from those reporting improvement. So, readings above zero
indicate more positive than negative responses. These indexes have a good
correlation with growth in the series covered. The data are available in Haver's
SURVEYS database.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
<table width="1871" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="1376">Federal Reserve Bank of
 Philadelphia: Nonmanufacturing Business Outlook Survey (Diffusion Index,
 SA)</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">Apr</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">Apr'19</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">2019</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">2018</th>
 <th scope="col" width="71">2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">General Activity - Company</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-82.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-12.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">36.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">34.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">23.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">33.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">27.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; New Orders</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-67.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-16.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">28.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">21.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">16.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">24.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">19.1</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Sales or Revenue</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-87.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-4.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">39.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">34.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">24.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">30.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">27.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Inventories</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">1.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-1.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">5.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">2.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">4.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">5.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">3.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Number of Full-Time Permanent
 Employees</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-47.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-1.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">21.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">18.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">20.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">18.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">14.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Part-Time/Temporary/Contract
 Employees</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-58.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-11.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">10.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">23.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">14.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">15.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">12.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Prices Paid</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-0.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">6.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">21.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">26.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">25.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">28.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">21.4</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Wage &amp; Benefit Costs</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-35.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">26.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">30.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">37.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">39.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">40.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">33.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">Expected General Activity - Company</td>
 <td align="center" width="70"></td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-16.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">44.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">44.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">41.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">49.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">49.8</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;
U.S. Existing Home Sales Reach 2007 High with Increased
Prices in February 
by <a href="http://www.haver.com/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; April 21, 2020
• Existing home sales weaken to xxx low.
• Sales declines are broad-based around the country.
• Prices weaken as inventory increases.
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that
sales of existing homes during February jumped 6.5% (7.2% y/y) to 5.770 million
(AR) from 5.420 million in January, revised from 5.460 million. It was the
highest level of sales since February 2007. The Action Economics Forecast Survey
expected February sales of 5.52 million.
The median price of all existing homes sold increased 1.5%
(8.0% y/y) to $270,100 following a 3.0% January decline. The average sales price
improved 1.0% last month (6.0% y/y) to $305,800. These price data are not
seasonally adjusted.
Existing home sales were mixed around the country in
February. The increase in sales overall was paced by an 18.9% surge (11.5% y/y)
in the West to 1.260 million, the highest level since February 2007. Sales in
the South rose 7.2% (8.2% y/y) to 2.520 million, the highest level since October
2006, while sales in the Midwest edged 0.8% up (4.0% y/y). Sales in the
Northeast declined, however, by 4.1% (+2.9% y/y) to 700,000, the lowest level in
three months.
Sales of existing single-family homes strengthened 7.3% both
m/m and&nbsp; y/y to 5.170 million units after falling 1.8% in January. Sales of
condos and co-ops held steady (7.1% y/y) at 600,000 units.
The number of homes on the market decreased 9.8% y/y and
roughly equaled the record low. The month's supply of homes on the market
remained at 3.1 versus 3.6 one year earlier and roughly equaled the record low.
These inventory figures date back to 1999.
The data on existing home sales, prices and affordability are
compiled by the National Association of Realtors and can be found in Haver's USECON
database. The regional price, affordability and inventory data are available in
the REALTOR database. The expectations figure is from the Action
Economics Forecast Survey, reported in the AS1REPNA database.
<table width="1871" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="706">Existing Home Sales (SAAR,
 000s)</th>
 <th scope="col" width="165">Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">Jan</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">Mar Y/Y %</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">2019</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">2018</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">Total Sales</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,770</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,420</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">7.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,330</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,341</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,531</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="even">
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">&nbsp;&nbsp; Northeast</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">700</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">730</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">687</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">689</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">735</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">&nbsp;&nbsp; Midwest</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,290</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,280</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,248</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,265</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,301</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="even">
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">&nbsp;&nbsp; South</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,520</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,350</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">8.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,281</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,246</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,270</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">&nbsp;&nbsp; West</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,260</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,060</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">11.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,115</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,141</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,225</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="even">
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">Single-Family Sales</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,170</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4,820</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">7.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4,754</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4,742</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4,907</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">Median Price Total ($, NSA)</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">270,100</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">266,200</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">8.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">269,783</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">257,267</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">245,950</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>


</body>

</html>

<html>

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<title>Chicago Fed National Activity Index Suggests Growth Picked Up in February
by Tom Moeller&nbsp; March 23</title>
</head>

<body>

 

• Crude oil prices slid lower last week and dropped
further yesterday.
• Gasoline prices fall as drivers stay off the road.
• Natural gas prices ease. 
The spot price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil
weakened to $20.10 (-68.5% y/y) per barrel last week from an average $24.40 one
week earlier. It was the lowest price since February 2002.&nbsp; Yesterday, prices actually turned negative as
oil producers paid buyers to take oil over fears of continued weak demand and a
lack of storage. The price of Brent crude oil declined to an average of $29.18
last week. The price has fallen from a $67.38 high averaged in the last week of
December. Yesterday, the price was $25.93.
Retail gasoline prices declined to $1.81 per gallon
(-36.2% y/y) in the week ended April 20 from $1.85 per gallon in the previous
week. Prices remained below their May 2019 peak of $2.90 per gallon. Haver
Analytics adjusts the gasoline price series for regular seasonal variation. The
seasonally adjusted price fell to $1.73 per gallon from $1.79.
The average price of natural gas edged lower to $1.72/mmbtu
(-34.5% y/y) last week after rising to $1.77 in the prior week. They remained
below the peak of $2.81/mmbtu early in November. Yesterday, the price was
$1.86/mmbtu.
Reduced oil &amp; product prices reflect a collapse in demand
and a rise in supply. In the four weeks ending April 10, gasoline demand
declined 31.6% y/y, while total petroleum product demand fell 18.5% y/y. Crude
oil input to refineries declined 10.7% y/y in the past four weeks. At the same
time,&nbsp; gasoline inventories rose 15.0% y/y and inventories of all
petroleum products increased 4.9% y/y. 
These data are reported by the U.S. Department of Energy. The
price data can be found in Haver's WEEKLY and DAILY databases.
Greater detail on prices, as well as the demand, production and inventory data,
along with regional breakdowns, are in OILWKLY.
<table width="1871" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="1046">Weekly Energy Prices</th>
 <th width="117">04/20/20</th>
 <th width="117">04/13/20</th>
 <th width="117">04/06/20</th>
 <th width="117">Y/Y %</th>
 <th width="117">2019</th>
 <th width="118">2018</th>
 <th width="118">2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="1046">Retail Gasoline ($ per Gallon Regular,
 Monday Price, End of Period)</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.81</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.85</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.92</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">-36.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">2.57</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">2.27</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">2.47</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1046">Light Sweet Crude Oil, WTI ($ per bbl,
 Previous Week's Average)</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">20.10</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">24.40</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">21.72</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">-68.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">56.91</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">64.95</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">50.87</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="1046">Natural Gas ($/mmbtu, LA, Previous
 Week's Average)</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.72</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.77</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.62</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">-34.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">2.57</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">3.18</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">2.99</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;
Philadelphia Fed Nonmanufacturing Business Activity
Collapses 
by <a href="http://www.haver.com/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;April 21, 2020
• New orders &amp; shipments turn negative.
• Employment decline weakens wages.
• Prices paid fall sharply.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported that its
Nonmanufacturing Business Index of current activity at the company level dropped
to -82.5 during April after weakening to -12.8 in March. The index of expected
general activity similarly remained negative at -24.5.
Components of the company general activity index were all
weak this month. New orders figures collapsed to -67.2 as only 0.3% of firms
reported improved new orders while a greatly increased 68% reported a decline.
The sales or revenue series fell m/m to -87.9. The index of unfilled orders also
went negative but the inventories measure rose slightly.
The labor market measures unraveled in April. The full-time
permanent employment measure fell to -47.5, indicating a record pace of job
cutbacks. A greatly lessened 4% of firms reported increased hiring while a
surging 52% reported a decline. Part-time/temporary employee hiring again was
pulled back. The average workweek reading similarly dove. The wages &amp;
benefits measure turned negative.
Pricing power evaporated. The index of prices paid fell to
-0.4, down from 34.7 late last year. A greatly lessened 13% of firms reported
higher prices while a near-record 14% paid less. The prices received index fell
well into negative territory.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
The capital expenditure measures collapsed. Both the physical
plant and equipment &amp; software expenditure readings turned negative. Seven
percent of respondents raised outlays on equipment while 48% lowered them. 
The Philadelphia Fed figures are diffusion indexes which are
calculated by subtracting the percent of respondents reporting decreases in
business activity from those reporting improvement. So, readings above zero
indicate more positive than negative responses. These indexes have a good
correlation with growth in the series covered. The data are available in Haver's
SURVEYS database.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
<table width="1871" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="1376">Federal Reserve Bank of
 Philadelphia: Nonmanufacturing Business Outlook Survey (Diffusion Index,
 SA)</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">Apr</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">Apr'19</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">2019</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">2018</th>
 <th scope="col" width="71">2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">General Activity - Company</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-82.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-12.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">36.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">34.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">23.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">33.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">27.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; New Orders</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-67.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-16.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">28.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">21.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">16.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">24.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">19.1</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Sales or Revenue</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-87.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-4.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">39.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">34.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">24.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">30.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">27.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Inventories</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">1.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-1.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">5.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">2.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">4.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">5.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">3.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Number of Full-Time Permanent
 Employees</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-47.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-1.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">21.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">18.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">20.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">18.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">14.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Part-Time/Temporary/Contract
 Employees</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-58.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-11.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">10.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">23.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">14.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">15.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">12.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Prices Paid</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-0.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">6.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">21.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">26.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">25.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">28.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">21.4</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Wage &amp; Benefit Costs</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-35.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">26.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">30.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">37.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">39.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">40.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">33.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">Expected General Activity - Company</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-24.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-16.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">44.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">43.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">41.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">49.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">49.8</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;
U.S. Existing Home Sales Reach 2007 High with Increased
Prices in February 
by <a href="http://www.haver.com/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; April 21, 2020
• Existing home sales weaken to xxx low.
• Sales declines are broad-based around the country.
• Prices weaken as inventory increases.
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that
sales of existing homes during February jumped 6.5% (7.2% y/y) to 5.770 million
(AR) from 5.420 million in January, revised from 5.460 million. It was the
highest level of sales since February 2007. The Action Economics Forecast Survey
expected February sales of 5.52 million.
The median price of all existing homes sold increased 1.5%
(8.0% y/y) to $270,100 following a 3.0% January decline. The average sales price
improved 1.0% last month (6.0% y/y) to $305,800. These price data are not
seasonally adjusted.
Existing home sales were mixed around the country in
February. The increase in sales overall was paced by an 18.9% surge (11.5% y/y)
in the West to 1.260 million, the highest level since February 2007. Sales in
the South rose 7.2% (8.2% y/y) to 2.520 million, the highest level since October
2006, while sales in the Midwest edged 0.8% up (4.0% y/y). Sales in the
Northeast declined, however, by 4.1% (+2.9% y/y) to 700,000, the lowest level in
three months.
Sales of existing single-family homes strengthened 7.3% both
m/m and&nbsp; y/y to 5.170 million units after falling 1.8% in January. Sales of
condos and co-ops held steady (7.1% y/y) at 600,000 units.
The number of homes on the market decreased 9.8% y/y and
roughly equaled the record low. The month's supply of homes on the market
remained at 3.1 versus 3.6 one year earlier and roughly equaled the record low.
These inventory figures date back to 1999.
The data on existing home sales, prices and affordability are
compiled by the National Association of Realtors and can be found in Haver's USECON
database. The regional price, affordability and inventory data are available in
the REALTOR database. The expectations figure is from the Action
Economics Forecast Survey, reported in the AS1REPNA database.
<table width="1871" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="706">Existing Home Sales (SAAR,
 000s)</th>
 <th scope="col" width="165">Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">Jan</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">Mar Y/Y %</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">2019</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">2018</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">Total Sales</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,770</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,420</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">7.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,330</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,341</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,531</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="even">
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">&nbsp;&nbsp; Northeast</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">700</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">730</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">687</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">689</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">735</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">&nbsp;&nbsp; Midwest</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,290</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,280</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,248</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,265</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,301</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="even">
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">&nbsp;&nbsp; South</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,520</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,350</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">8.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,281</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,246</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,270</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">&nbsp;&nbsp; West</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,260</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,060</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">11.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,115</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,141</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,225</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="even">
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">Single-Family Sales</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,170</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4,820</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">7.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4,754</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4,742</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4,907</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">Median Price Total ($, NSA)</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">270,100</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">266,200</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">8.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">269,783</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">257,267</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">245,950</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>


</body>

</html>

<html>

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<title>Chicago Fed National Activity Index Suggests Growth Picked Up in February
by Tom Moeller&nbsp; March 23</title>
</head>

<body>

 

• Crude oil prices slid lower last week and dropped
further yesterday.
• Gasoline prices fall as drivers stay off the road.
• Natural gas prices ease.&nbsp;
The spot price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil
weakened to $20.10 (-68.5% y/y) per barrel last week from an average $24.40 one
week earlier. It was the lowest price since February 2002.&nbsp; Yesterday, prices actually turned negative as
oil producers paid buyers to take oil over fears of continued weak demand and a
lack of storage. The price of Brent crude oil declined to an average of $29.18
last week. The price has fallen from a $67.38 high averaged in the last week of
December. Yesterday, the price was $25.93.
Retail gasoline prices declined to $1.81 per gallon
(-36.2% y/y) in the week ended April 20 from $1.85 per gallon in the previous
week. Prices remained below their May 2019 peak of $2.90 per gallon. Haver
Analytics adjusts the gasoline price series for regular seasonal variation. The
seasonally adjusted price fell to $1.73 per gallon from $1.79.
The average price of natural gas edged lower to $1.72/mmbtu
(-34.5% y/y) last week after rising to $1.77 in the prior week. They remained
below the peak of $2.81/mmbtu early in November. Yesterday, the price was
$1.86/mmbtu.
Reduced oil &amp; product prices reflect a collapse in demand
and a rise in supply. In the four weeks ending April 10, gasoline demand
declined 31.6% y/y, while total petroleum product demand fell 18.5% y/y. Crude
oil input to refineries declined 10.7% y/y in the past four weeks. At the same
time,&nbsp; gasoline inventories rose 15.0% y/y and inventories of all
petroleum products increased 4.9% y/y.&nbsp;
These data are reported by the U.S. Department of Energy. The
price data can be found in Haver's WEEKLY and DAILY databases.
Greater detail on prices, as well as the demand, production and inventory data,
along with regional breakdowns, are in OILWKLY.
<table width="1871" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="1046">Weekly Energy Prices</th>
 <th width="117">04/20/20</th>
 <th width="117">04/13/20</th>
 <th width="117">04/06/20</th>
 <th width="117">Y/Y %</th>
 <th width="117">2019</th>
 <th width="118">2018</th>
 <th width="118">2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="1046">Retail Gasoline ($ per Gallon Regular,
 Monday Price, End of Period)</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.81</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.85</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.92</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">-36.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">2.57</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">2.27</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">2.47</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1046">Light Sweet Crude Oil, WTI ($ per bbl,
 Previous Week's Average)</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">20.10</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">24.40</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">21.72</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">-68.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">56.91</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">64.95</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">50.87</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="1046">Natural Gas ($/mmbtu, LA, Previous
 Week's Average)</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.72</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.77</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.62</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">-34.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">2.57</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">3.18</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">2.99</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;
Philadelphia Fed Nonmanufacturing Business Activity
Collapses 
by <a href="http://www.haver.com/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;April 21, 2020
• New orders &amp; shipments turn negative.
• Employment decline weakens wages.
• Prices paid fall sharply.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported that its
Nonmanufacturing Business Index of current activity at the company level dropped
to -82.5 during April after weakening to -12.8 in March. The index of expected
general activity similarly remained negative at -24.5.
Components of the company general activity index were all
weak this month. New orders figures collapsed to -67.2 as only 0.3% of firms
reported improved new orders while a greatly increased 68% reported a decline.
The sales or revenue series fell m/m to -87.9. The index of unfilled orders also
went negative but the inventories measure rose slightly.
The labor market measures unraveled in April. The full-time
permanent employment measure fell to -47.5, indicating a record pace of job
cutbacks. A greatly lessened 4% of firms reported increased hiring while a
surging 52% reported a decline. Part-time/temporary employee hiring again was
pulled back. The average workweek reading similarly dove. The wages &amp;
benefits measure turned negative.
Pricing power evaporated. The index of prices paid fell to
-0.4, down from 34.7 late last year. A greatly lessened 13% of firms reported
higher prices while a near-record 14% paid less. The prices received index fell
well into negative territory.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The capital expenditure measures collapsed. Both the physical
plant and equipment &amp; software expenditure readings turned negative. Seven
percent of respondents raised outlays on equipment while 48% lowered them.&nbsp;
The Philadelphia Fed figures are diffusion indexes which are
calculated by subtracting the percent of respondents reporting decreases in
business activity from those reporting improvement. So, readings above zero
indicate more positive than negative responses. These indexes have a good
correlation with growth in the series covered. The data are available in Haver's
SURVEYS database.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<table width="1871" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="1376">Federal Reserve Bank of
 Philadelphia: Nonmanufacturing Business Outlook Survey (Diffusion Index,
 SA)</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">Apr</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">Apr'19</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">2019</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">2018</th>
 <th scope="col" width="71">2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">General Activity - Company</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-82.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-12.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">36.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">34.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">23.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">33.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">27.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; New Orders</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-67.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-16.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">28.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">21.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">16.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">24.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">19.1</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Sales or Revenue</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-87.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-4.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">39.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">34.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">24.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">30.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">27.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Inventories</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">1.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-1.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">5.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">2.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">4.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">5.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">3.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Number of Full-Time Permanent
 Employees</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-47.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-1.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">21.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">18.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">20.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">18.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">14.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Part-Time/Temporary/Contract
 Employees</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-58.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-11.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">10.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">23.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">14.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">15.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">12.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Prices Paid</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-0.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">6.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">21.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">26.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">25.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">28.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">21.4</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Wage &amp; Benefit Costs</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-35.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">26.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">30.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">37.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">39.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">40.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">33.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">Expected General Activity - Company</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-24.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-16.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">44.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">43.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">41.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">49.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">49.8</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;
U.S. Existing Home Sales Pull Back but Prices Rise 
by <a href="http://www.haver.com/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; April 21, 2020
• Existing home sales near 2019 low as coronavirus sets
in.
• Sales decline around the country.
• Prices improved before quarantine.
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that
sales of existing homes during March declined 8.5% (+0.8% y/y) to 5.270 million
(AR) from 5.760 million in February, revised from 5.770 million. It was the
lowest level of sales since April of last year. The Action Economics Forecast
Survey expected March sales of 5.30 million.
The median price of all existing homes sold increased 3.8% (NSA,
8.0% y/y) to $280,600 following a 1.6% February increase. The average sales
price improved 3.3% last month (6.2% y/y) to $316,000. These price data are not
seasonally adjusted.
Existing home sales weakened around the country in March. In
the West, sales fell 13.6% (-0.9% y/y) to 1.080 million and reversed the
increase in February. Sales in the South declined 9.1% (+0.9% y/y) to 2.290
million, the lowest level since November. In the Northeast, sales fell 7.1%
(-3.0% y/y) to 650,000, roughly five-year low. Sales in the Midwest were off
3.1% (+4.2% y/y) to 1.250 million, the lowest level since May of last year.
Sales of existing single-family homes weakened 8.1% (+1.3%
y/y) to 4.740 million units and reversed February's rise. Sales of condos and
co-ops weakened plunged 11.7% (-3.6% y/y) to 530,000 units, the lowest level
since July 2012.
The number of homes on the market decreased 10.2% y/y, but
rose seasonally in recent months. The months' supply of homes on the market
improved m/m to 3.4 but compared to 3.8 one year earlier. These inventory
figures date back to 1999.
The data on existing home sales, prices and affordability are
compiled by the National Association of Realtors and can be found in Haver's USECON
database. The regional price, affordability and inventory data are available in
the REALTOR database. The expectations figure is from the Action
Economics Forecast Survey, reported in the AS1REPNA database.
<table width="1871" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="706">Existing Home Sales (SAAR,
 000s)</th>
 <th scope="col" width="165">Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">Jan</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">Mar Y/Y %</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">2019</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">2018</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">Total Sales</td>
 <td align="center" width="165">5,270</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,760</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,420</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">0.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,330</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,341</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,531</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="even">
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">&nbsp;&nbsp; Northeast</td>
 <td align="center" width="165">650</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">700</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">730</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">-3.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">687</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">689</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">735</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">&nbsp;&nbsp; Midwest</td>
 <td align="center" width="165">1,250</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,290</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,280</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,248</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,265</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,301</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="even">
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">&nbsp;&nbsp; South</td>
 <td align="center" width="165">2,290</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,520</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,350</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">0.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,281</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,246</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,270</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">&nbsp;&nbsp; West</td>
 <td align="center" width="165">1,080</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,250</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,060</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">-0.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,115</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,141</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,225</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="even">
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">Single-Family Sales</td>
 <td align="center" width="165">4,740</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,160</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4,820</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4,754</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4,742</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4,907</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">Median Price Total ($, NSA)</td>
 <td align="center" width="165">280,600</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">270,400</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">266,200</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">8.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">269,783</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">257,267</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">245,950</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>


</body>

</html>

<html>

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<title>Chicago Fed National Activity Index Suggests Growth Picked Up in February
by Tom Moeller&nbsp; March 23</title>
</head>

<body>

 

• Crude oil prices slid lower last week and dropped
further yesterday.
• Gasoline prices fall as drivers stay off the road.
• Natural gas prices ease. 
The spot price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil
weakened to $20.10 (-68.5% y/y) per barrel last week from an average $24.40 one
week earlier. It was the lowest price since February 2002.&nbsp; Yesterday, prices actually turned negative as
oil producers paid buyers to take oil over fears of continued weak demand and a
lack of storage. The price of Brent crude oil declined to an average of $29.18
last week. The price has fallen from a $67.38 high averaged in the last week of
December. Yesterday, the price was $25.93.
Retail gasoline prices declined to $1.81 per gallon
(-36.2% y/y) in the week ended April 20 from $1.85 per gallon in the previous
week. Prices remained below their May 2019 peak of $2.90 per gallon. Haver
Analytics adjusts the gasoline price series for regular seasonal variation. The
seasonally adjusted price fell to $1.73 per gallon from $1.79.
The average price of natural gas edged lower to $1.72/mmbtu
(-34.5% y/y) last week after rising to $1.77 in the prior week. They remained
below the peak of $2.81/mmbtu early in November. Yesterday, the price was
$1.86/mmbtu.
Reduced oil &amp; product prices reflect a collapse in demand
and a rise in supply. In the four weeks ending April 10, gasoline demand
declined 31.6% y/y, while total petroleum product demand fell 18.5% y/y. Crude
oil input to refineries declined 10.7% y/y in the past four weeks. At the same
time,&nbsp; gasoline inventories rose 15.0% y/y and inventories of all
petroleum products increased 4.9% y/y. 
These data are reported by the U.S. Department of Energy. The
price data can be found in Haver's WEEKLY and DAILY databases.
Greater detail on prices, as well as the demand, production and inventory data,
along with regional breakdowns, are in OILWKLY.
<table width="1871" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="1046">Weekly Energy Prices</th>
 <th width="117">04/20/20</th>
 <th width="117">04/13/20</th>
 <th width="117">04/06/20</th>
 <th width="117">Y/Y %</th>
 <th width="117">2019</th>
 <th width="118">2018</th>
 <th width="118">2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="1046">Retail Gasoline ($ per Gallon Regular,
 Monday Price, End of Period)</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.81</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.85</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.92</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">-36.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">2.57</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">2.27</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">2.47</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1046">Light Sweet Crude Oil, WTI ($ per bbl,
 Previous Week's Average)</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">20.10</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">24.40</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">21.72</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">-68.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">56.91</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">64.95</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">50.87</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="1046">Natural Gas ($/mmbtu, LA, Previous
 Week's Average)</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.72</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.77</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">1.62</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">-34.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="117">2.57</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">3.18</td>
 <td align="center" width="118">2.99</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;
Philadelphia Fed Nonmanufacturing Business Activity
Collapses 
by <a href="http://www.haver.com/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;April 21, 2020
• New orders &amp; shipments turn negative.
• Employment decline weakens wages.
• Prices paid ease.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported that its
Nonmanufacturing Business Index of current general activity at the company level
dropped to -82.5 during April after weakening to -12.8 in March. The index of
expected general activity similarly remained negative at -24.5.
Components of the company general activity index were all
weak this month. New orders figures again collapsed to -82.5 as only 0.3% of
firms reported improved new orders while a greatly increased 68% reported a
decline. The sales or revenue series fell m/m to -87.9. The index of unfilled
orders also went negative but the inventories measure rose slightly.
The labor market measures also collapsed in April. The
full-time permanent employment measure fell to -47.5, indicating by far a record
pace of job cutbacks. A greatly lessened 4% of firms reported increased hiring
while a surging 52% reported a decline. Part-time/temporary employee hiring again
was pulled back. The average workweek reading similarly collapsed. The wages
&amp; benefits measure turned negative.
Pricing power evaporated. The index of prices paid fell to
-0.4, down from 34.7 in December. A greatly lessened 15% of firms reported
higher prices while an increased nine percent indicated a decline, the most in
five years. Prices received also were significantly weakened.
The capital expenditure measures fell sharply. The physical
plant measure declined to the lowest level since October. The equipment &amp;
software expenditure reading also weakened to a four-month low.
The Philadelphia Fed figures are diffusion indexes which are
calculated by subtracting the percent of respondents reporting decreases in
business activity from those reporting improvement. So, readings above zero
indicate more positive than negative responses. These indexes have a good
correlation with growth in the series covered. The data are available in Haver's
SURVEYS database.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
<table width="1871" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="1376">Federal Reserve Bank of
 Philadelphia: Nonmanufacturing Business Outlook Survey (Diffusion Index,
 SA)</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">Apr</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">Apr'19</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">2019</th>
 <th scope="col" width="70">2018</th>
 <th scope="col" width="71">2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">General Activity - Company</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-82.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-12.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">36.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">34.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">23.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">33.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">27.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; New Orders</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-67.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-16.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">28.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">21.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">16.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">24.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">19.1</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Sales or Revenue</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-87.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-4.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">39.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">34.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">24.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">30.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">27.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Inventories</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">1.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-1.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">5.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">2.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">4.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">5.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">3.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Number of Full-Time Permanent
 Employees</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-47.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-1.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">21.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">18.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">20.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">18.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">14.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Part-Time/Temporary/Contract
 Employees</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-58.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-11.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">10.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">23.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">14.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">15.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">12.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Prices Paid</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-0.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">6.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">21.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">26.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">25.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">28.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">21.4</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">&nbsp; Wage &amp; Benefit Costs</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-35.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">26.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">30.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">37.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">39.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">40.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">33.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="1376">Expected General Activity - Company</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-24.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">-16.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">44.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">43.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">41.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="70">49.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="71">49.8</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>

&nbsp;
U.S. Existing Home Sales Reach 2007 High with Increased
Prices in February 
by <a href="http://www.haver.com/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; April 21, 2020
• Existing home sales weaken to xxx low.
• Sales declines are broad-based around the country.
• Prices weaken as inventory increases.
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that
sales of existing homes during February jumped 6.5% (7.2% y/y) to 5.770 million
(AR) from 5.420 million in January, revised from 5.460 million. It was the
highest level of sales since February 2007. The Action Economics Forecast Survey
expected February sales of 5.52 million.
The median price of all existing homes sold increased 1.5%
(8.0% y/y) to $270,100 following a 3.0% January decline. The average sales price
improved 1.0% last month (6.0% y/y) to $305,800. These price data are not
seasonally adjusted.
Existing home sales were mixed around the country in
February. The increase in sales overall was paced by an 18.9% surge (11.5% y/y)
in the West to 1.260 million, the highest level since February 2007. Sales in
the South rose 7.2% (8.2% y/y) to 2.520 million, the highest level since October
2006, while sales in the Midwest edged 0.8% up (4.0% y/y). Sales in the
Northeast declined, however, by 4.1% (+2.9% y/y) to 700,000, the lowest level in
three months.
Sales of existing single-family homes strengthened 7.3% both
m/m and&nbsp; y/y to 5.170 million units after falling 1.8% in January. Sales of
condos and co-ops held steady (7.1% y/y) at 600,000 units.
The number of homes on the market decreased 9.8% y/y and
roughly equaled the record low. The month's supply of homes on the market
remained at 3.1 versus 3.6 one year earlier and roughly equaled the record low.
These inventory figures date back to 1999.
The data on existing home sales, prices and affordability are
compiled by the National Association of Realtors and can be found in Haver's USECON
database. The regional price, affordability and inventory data are available in
the REALTOR database. The expectations figure is from the Action
Economics Forecast Survey, reported in the AS1REPNA database.
<table width="1871" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="706">Existing Home Sales (SAAR,
 000s)</th>
 <th scope="col" width="165">Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">Jan</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">Mar Y/Y %</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">2019</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">2018</th>
 <th scope="col" width="166">2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">Total Sales</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,770</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,420</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">7.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,330</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,341</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,531</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="even">
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">&nbsp;&nbsp; Northeast</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">700</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">730</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">687</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">689</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">735</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">&nbsp;&nbsp; Midwest</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,290</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,280</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,248</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,265</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,301</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="even">
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">&nbsp;&nbsp; South</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,520</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,350</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">8.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,281</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,246</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">2,270</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">&nbsp;&nbsp; West</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,260</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,060</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">11.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,115</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,141</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">1,225</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="even">
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">Single-Family Sales</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">5,170</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4,820</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">7.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4,754</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4,742</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">4,907</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="706">Median Price Total ($, NSA)</td>
 <td align="center" width="165"></td>
 <td align="center" width="166">270,100</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">266,200</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">8.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">269,783</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">257,267</td>
 <td align="center" width="166">245,950</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>


</body>

</html>

Robert Brusca

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	 
 
 
 
 


<a href="/comment/200420e.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200420e.png" align="left"></a>
In the EMU, neither exports nor imports show much zest. But exports had some life in their year-on-year trend and that is helping to drive a wider surplus in the EMU area. Broadly both exports and imports are fluctuating in relatively low ranges, but the key difference is that imports are generally fluctuating at low rates of contraction while exports are fluctuating at low rates of expansion. That plus/minus line makes all the difference in the world.

The trade balance and its three-month average are above the 12-month average and that is true of the current account as well. The EMU surpluses are sharply higher this month.

The reason is clear as exports grew by 1.8% while imports fell by 2.3% and created a powerful surge in the surplus which is the difference between these two flows. Interestingly both manufactured and nonmanufactured goods followed that same pattern in February,

EMU exports of nonmanufactured goods are surging, rising at a 48.9% annualized pace over three months, up steadily from a 13.6% pace over 12 months. On the import side, nonmanufactures are moving up too and accelerating from a -0.8% drop over 12 months to 4.6% gain over six months to an 11.4% pace of expansion over three months. Obviously, exports are dominating this net balance driving it to a sharply higher EMU surplus.

Manufactured goods show the same trend this time dominated by sinking EMU imports. On the export side, export growth does step up from a pace of 1.2% over 12 months to a pace of 5.6% over three months. But imports of manufactures that fall by 0.8% over 12 months decelerate and fall at an 8.4% annualized rate over three months dominating all trends in manufacturing.

These figures show that EMU exports are surviving, but that EMU domestic demand has dried up. Even the exports that are expanding and pulling in imports to support them, are not able to offset the impact of domestic demand weakness on imports. The sharp pullback in manufacturing imports helps to contract the trade deficit and to cushion the blow on EMU GDP growth.


<img border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200420.png" width="660" height="350">


Germany has been debating a domestic stimulus package and in a news report Angela Merkel is counseling for a smaller package lest southern European countries think Germany has the resources to help them too. Let there be no doubt that we are in a world of everyman for himself, obscured by some window-dressing of 'care' for our fellow man.

In this world, politics continue to play out in spades as U.S. President Trump has severed support for WHO because of its close ties and support of China that he sees as part of the reason that the pandemic spread so fast and has damaged his chance at reelection. In the U.K., there are calls to investigate the government's response, calls that are being set aside for another day. In the U.S., there is political infighting about support packages. Even candidate Joe Biden is trying to blame President Trump for being at fault because he was 'too close to China's Xi.'

Taiwan surprisingly reported a rise in export orders in March. The gain in Taiwan orders was rather broad based but not unequivocal. The report is for the month of March, a month in which significant weakness has emerged in most economies. Still, the growth in Taiwan's orders spans electronics, machinery, information and communications products led by a 23.8% jump in electronics. Many other categories showed declines. But Taiwan's numbers do seem to show that perhaps the tech-most aspect of economies are still vibrant especially with 'sheltering at home' and the need for technology equipment to permit and enhance that. While travel and leisure sectors are flat on their back, technology still has life and we can see that in the global equity market indexes and share prices where so many true tech companies have lost little or no ground in this selloff.

However, the overarching view is that global growth is weak and will remain so. A handful of countries are planning to reduce their lockdowns and think they may have passed the peak of the crisis. Still, those counties will move slowly and cautiously. Anyone looking for a V-shaped recovery will have to try a different planet.

In the U.S. talks, arguments and exposés are in vogue about the ongoing government programs and plans for new ones or just plans to top-up existing programs, just like in Germany. Australia has challenged China to tell the truth about what happened and it has been rebuked with China telling countries not to meddle in its affairs. This position by China will be resisted. China has no scope to call this 'its affair' when its public health failure has spawned a pandemic that has infected and killed people in nearly every country on earth. I think this crisis will put an end to China's obstinance or to the increased role it has been playing in the global economy. Something very significant has got to give and China needs to open up or to damp down its ambitions.


</html>

In the EMU, neither exports nor imports show much zest. But exports had some life in their year-on-year trend and that is helping to drive a wider surplus in the EMU area. Broadly both exports and imports are fluctuating in relatively [...]

EMU Trade Surpluses Expand As the Virus Swirls

Inflationary impact of surge in oil prices larger in Europe than in the US

Futures market thinks the price of oil will recede significantly over the next six months

Recent pickup in US defense orders could help support overall growth ahead

Cost of transporting crude oil has soared to series high

Market-based inflation expectations have not yet reflected recent surge in oil prices

Global equity markets are fearing a major economic disruption from soaring oil prices

Is recent drop in sentiment signaling softer growth ahead?

With the Iran conflict, geopolitical risk has soared to alarming levels

Soaring AI-related investment in US underpinning strong contribution of business spending to overall growth

AI-related outperformance of IP in Advanced Asia ex Japan

Resilient US economy pushing up Blue Chip 2026 outlook

US and China big leaders in adoption of AI models

Robust US demand for advanced technology products

China's export growth rotating away from the US

More pronounced upward revisions in countries more exposed to AI investment

Stable job openings and hiring rates point to cautious hiring

Global freight costs are on the rise while supply chain pressures are contained

Accelerating positive economic surprises in the G10 are boosting the global economy

Considerably more monetary ease expected from US and UK as Japan tightens

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

PMIs show still-elevated but slowing US inflation

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

Service Health

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

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Featured Data Additions

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Michael J. Moran

260428N.jpg

260428O.jpg

The Conference Board’s index of Consumer Confidence inched higher in April from an upwardly revised reading in March. The combined changes left the measure 1.1% higher than the preliminary tally in March. Despite the improvement, the index remained in the low end of the range for the current expansion. The index in April totaled 92.8, down from an average of 96.1 in 2025 and an annual cyclical high of 105.4 in 2023.

The Improvement in April reflected a pickup in the expectations component, which rose 1.7%. The current conditions component inched 0.2% lower. Overall views on current conditions slipped despite more favorable assessments of the labor market. The so-called measure of the jobs gap (share of respondents indicating that jobs are plentiful less the share saying that jobs are hard to get) rose 1.4 percentage points higher to 7.5%. The pickup reflected a drop in the share indicating that jobs are hard to get (down 1.5 percentage points to 19.8%). The share indicating that jobs are plentiful eased 0.1 percentage point to 27.3%.

Although expectations improved in April, from a long-term perspective they could be viewed as the more important factor restraining the headline measure of confidence. As shown in the left chart below, the expectations component of confidence shows considerably less volatility than the current conditions component does. The contrasting patterns suggest that individuals realize that the economy will undergo possibly sharp cyclical swings, but they expect conditions at some point to return to an underlying norm.

The current conditions index in the current cycle has indeed dropped noticeably, but it is still above the long run average (123.8 in April versus the average of approximately 108 from 1990 to 2025). The expectations component, as usual, has eased less than the current conditions component, but its shift has pushed the measure to the low end of its long-run range (72.2 in April versus an average of approximately 88).

Interestingly, concern about the labor market seems to be a factor affecting expectations. While current views on the labor market are favorable (plentiful less hard to get jobs gap of 7.5%), Individual are concerned about the future. The survey asks respondents if they expect more jobs or fewer jobs six months hence. The share indicating fewer jobs has moved well into the upper end of the historical range. Such observations in the past were typically seen only during recession (chart, below right). An unfavorable view on interest rates also seems to be playing a role in depressing the expectations component. More than 60% of respondents to the current survey expect higher interest rates 12 months from now.

The results from the Conference Board survey of consumers differ markedly from those of the University of Michigan Survey Research Center. The Michigan results show consumer sentiment at a record low, while the Conference Board index is only slightly below its long-run average. The difference most likely reflects the nature of the questions in the surveys. The Conference Board focuses on business and employment conditions, while Michigan emphasizes personal finances. The focus on finances, along with questions on inflation, probably picks up concerns about affordability.

The Consumer Confidence data are available in Haver’s **CBDB** database. The total indexes, which are indexed to 1985=100, appear in **USECON**, and market expectations are in **AS1REPNA**.

260428P.jpg

260428Q.jpg

- Expectations improved slightly in April, but are still subdued relative to norms.
- Moderately favorable view of current conditions.

Consumer Confidence: Modest Change in April

Winnie Tapasanun

260428J35.jpg

260428K35.jpg

U.S. house prices were essentially unchanged m/m in February after rises of 0.2% in January (+0.1% initially) and 0.3% in December (unrevised), according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) House Price Index. February marked the first flat reading since September following four consecutive m/m increases. The HPI was at 441.43 in February, up 14.8% from its August 2022 low of 384.59. The year-on-year growth rate eased to 1.7% in February—the lowest since March 2012—from 1.8% in January (+4.1% in February 2025), down from a high of 6.9% in February 2024 and well below a peak of 18.5% in February 2022.

By region, February FHFA house prices showed a mixed performance. House prices fell m/m in February (vs. January) in four of the nine census divisions. Declines were led by Mountain (-1.1% vs. +0.4%), followed by Pacific (-0.5% vs. +0.6%), West North Central (-0.4% vs. +0.3%), and Middle Atlantic (-0.1% vs. +0.3%). To the upside, house prices rose m/m in four census divisions in February (vs. January): South Atlantic (+0.6% vs. -0.2%), East South Central (+0.2% vs. +1.2%), New England (+0.2% vs. +0.6%), and West South Central (+0.2% vs. -0.3%). Meanwhile, house prices in East North Central were virtually unchanged m/m for the second successive month in February following seven straight m/m gains.

Year-on-year house prices continued to rise in February in most regions, except Mountain, Pacific, and West South Central. The y/y growth rate accelerated in February (vs. January) in only two of the nine census divisions: East South Central (+4.0% vs. +3.2%) and South Atlantic (+0.9% vs. +0.4%). Meanwhile, house price growth decelerated y/y in February (vs. January) in four regions: New England (+3.1% vs. +3.9%), West North Central (+3.1% vs. +3.6%), East North Central (+3.8% vs. +4.5%), and Middle Atlantic (+4.2% vs. +4.5%). To the downside, Mountain (-0.7% vs. 0.0%), Pacific (-0.4% vs. -0.3%), and West South Central (-0.1% vs. -0.4%) posted y/y declines in February.

The FHFA house price index is a weighted purchase-only index that measures average price changes in repeat sales of the same property. An associated quarterly index includes refinancing the same kind of properties. The indexes are based on transactions involving conforming conventional mortgages purchased or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Only mortgage transactions on single-family properties are included.

The FHFA data are available in Haver’s **USECON** database.

260428L35.jpg

260428M35.jpg

- February FHFA HPI 0.0% m/m; +1.7% y/y, lowest since Mar. ’12.
- House prices down m/m in four of nine census divisions, led by Mountain (-1.1%); up in four, driven by South Atlantic (+0.6%); flat in East North Central.
- House prices up y/y in six of nine regions, led by Middle Atlantic (+4.2%), but down in Mountain (-0.7%), Pacific (-0.4%), and West South Central (-0.1%).

U.S. FHFA House Prices Flat in February After Four Straight M/M Gains

Tian Yong Woon

In this week’s Letter, we cover the latest developments and implications of the Middle East conflict for Asia, while also making space for other important themes, including artificial intelligence (AI). The Middle East conflict remains in a no deal state coming out of the weekend, though some early Monday optimism emerged in Asian markets following Iran’s reported offer to reopen the Strait of Hormuz (chart 1). Nonetheless, as the Strait closure drags on, so too do the fiscal costs of domestic fossil fuel subsidies across Asia, which have been shown to move closely with crude oil prices (chart 2). While such measures offer direct relief by cushioning household energy costs, they remain difficult to sustain over the long haul.

Over the week, we also saw a further fraying in regional monetary policy trends, with the Philippines hiking its policy rate for the first time in about two years amid inflation concerns, while Indonesia stood pat on rates (chart 3). Investor attention is likely to remain fixed on monetary policy this week, with the Bank of Japan due to decide on policy. Expectations for an April hike have faded amid the persistent Middle East conflict, though yen weakness continues to present a source of concern (chart 4). The week also brings China’s latest PMI readings (chart 5), adding to the recent run of hard data accompanying the Q1 GDP release.

Beyond the Middle East conflict, the evolution of AI continues to demand close attention. Before geopolitical tensions took centre stage, AI was the dominant market narrative — and that enthusiasm has hardly faded. If anything, recent developments suggest the story is broadening: use cases are expanding, scalability is improving, and access is widening beyond large corporates to the mass market — increasingly spilling into the realm of physical AI. It may well be this persistent wave of optimism that is helping to underpin equity valuations, even as the geopolitical backdrop darkens (chart 6).

**The Middle East conflict**
About two months in, we remain stuck in the limbo of the US-Iran conflict, which has left the Strait of Hormuz largely closed and much of the world starved of the critical oil flows needed to power the global economy. The back and forth between the US and Iran has persisted in recent weeks, with both sides again failing to reach a peace deal over the weekend, though Monday’s news of Iran offering to reopen the Strait has revived some hope in markets. In truth, commodity and market valuations do not hinge so much on a peace deal itself, but rather on the resumption of oil flows through the Strait, something that could materialise even in the absence of a formal deal, though any agreement that includes and credibly delivers such a reopening would likely be warmly received by markets. Until then, market gyrations are likely to persist, with prices fluctuating in response to each new snippet of news. And until then, the world will continue both to be starved of, while gradually adapting to, the drip feed of oil flows emerging from the Strait.

260427T1.jpg

**The fiscal costs of the Middle East conflict**
As the Middle East conflict drags on, so too does the strain on fiscal resources across parts of Asia, as the costs of energy-related subsidy programmes continue to mount. While such programmes have an immediate, direct, and tangible impact in shielding households from surging energy costs, they are far from sustainable, particularly if oil prices remain well above targeted levels or stay elevated for an extended period. As chart 2 illustrates, the costs of these explicit subsidy programmes tend to rise closely with crude oil prices, as seen in India and Indonesia. Other measures adopted elsewhere, such as drawing down oil reserves, may be less fiscally costly, but are similarly difficult to sustain indefinitely. In both respects, the clock is ticking, and the world continues to hold its breath as the conflict drags on.

260427T2.jpg

**The latest central bank responses to the conflict**
Over the past week, Asia saw two central bank decisions. The Philippines’ (BSP) opted to deliver its first rate hike in about two years, while Indonesia’s (BI) chose to stand pat on policy rates and instead committed to stepped up FX intervention (chart 3). This latest round of decisions points to a further fraying of what had been a broad regional monetary policy consensus, namely that central banks would delay additional easing while maintaining a high bar for outright tightening. Domestic considerations, however, remain paramount. In the Philippines’ case, the central bank has moved to rein in inflation, which is already showing notable signs of price pass through stemming from disruptions linked to the Strait of Hormuz. That said, BSP is not the first in the region to buck the reluctance to tighten. Singapore’s central bank had already tightened policy in mid-April, albeit through its own distinct framework, given its use of the exchange rate rather than policy rates as the primary channel for monetary policy.

260427T3.jpg

**The week ahead**
Looking to the week ahead, a major central bank decision looms in Japan. Market expectations for the Bank of Japan to deliver a rate hike at its April meeting have ebbed amid the persistence of the Middle East conflict, to which Japan remains particularly vulnerable given its reliance on oil imports flowing through the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, inflation in Japan has yet to become a major concern, with recent readings having picked up but not yet entering troubling territory. One potential source of concern, however, lies with the Japanese yen, which has remained on a weakening trend since early last year (chart 4). That depreciation has been one of the key arguments underpinning calls for further rate hikes.

260427T4.jpg

The week also brings China’s latest PMIs into focus. March saw a divergence between China’s official PMI readings, which improved, and the unofficial readings from RatingDog, which instead pulled back. Nonetheless, both official and unofficial gauges remained in expansionary territory (chart 5), with investors now watching closely to see whether that resilience can be sustained amid ongoing stresses from the Middle East, or whether offsetting drivers can continue to keep Chinese business sentiment and prospects buoyant.

260427T5.jpg

**Beyond the strait**
Moving beyond the Middle East conflict, a whole host of developments continue to unfold globally, many of which have in fact helped offset some of the pessimism wrought by the Strait’s chokehold. One such development is artificial intelligence (AI), which had dominated headlines before the outbreak of the conflict and continues to advance at breakneck pace. AI capabilities are still rapidly evolving, while practical applications, such as physical AI embodied in humanoid robots, are beginning to show broader and stronger use cases. Production of such robots is also becoming increasingly scalable and within reach not just for industrial complexes and healthcare, but for the mass market as well. It is perhaps growing optimism around these prospects that has helped keep equity valuations buoyant, even in the face of the festering conflict in the Middle East. Moreover, while concerns over AI-driven job displacement persist, new opportunities are emerging as well, particularly for AI adopters, with a growing share of job postings in Western economies increasingly referencing AI-related skills, as shown in chart 6.

260427T6.jpg

Asia

Economic Letter from Asia: Not Just About the Strait

260427E.jpg

**The Distributive Trades Survey**

The U.K. Distributive Trades Survey for April 2026 and the look-ahead expectation readings for May paint an extremely soured outlook for the U.K. economy.

**Retail ranking**: Surveys for retail sales compared to a year ago, orders compared to a year ago, and sales evaluated for the time of year all have rankings near zero, which is the worst result on this timeline. This zero distinction applies to retail sales compared to a year ago. The best ranking is 11.6%; that is for sales evaluated for the time of year. Orders compared to a year ago have a 4.2 percentile standing. The stock-to-sales ratio—which is a completely different concept—shows that the inventory-to-sales ratio has a 29.9 percentile standing.

**Retail diffusion**: The raw April diffusion readings (up minus down diffusion) show that sales compared to a year ago slipped to a reading of -68 in April from -52 in March. Orders fell to -46 in April from -26 in March. Sales evaluated for the time of year fell to -32 April from -23 in March. All three measures weakened, and all three weakened decisively, resulting in extremely weak rankings. All of the rankings are executed on data back to 2002.

**Expectations for retailing**: The expectations readings for May show slippage again across all three metrics: expected sales compared to a year ago, expected orders compared to a year ago, and expected sales for the time of year. Expected sales compared to a year ago fell to -60 in May from -49 in April. Orders compared to a year ago declined to -45 in May from -30 in April, and sales for the time of year slipped to -43 from -19. In May, these readings have rankings in a 0.4 percentile standing for sales compared to a year ago, a 1.8 percentile standing for sales evaluated relative to the time of year, and a 4.6 percentile standing for orders compared to a year ago. These two panels on current and expected retail sales volumes are just simply terrible: weak monthly, weak in ranking terms, and showing slipping momentum.

The distributor trade series also provides data on the wholesale sector. While the wholesale sector is not quite as beat up as the retail sector, it's still extremely weak. There is no cause for any kind of hope that things are getting better based on wholesaling trends.

**Wholesaling**: The wholesale survey for sales compared to a year ago edged lower to -32 in April from -31 in March. Orders compared to a year ago remained at a reading of -41 in April. Sales evaluated for the time of year improved to a reading of -20 in April from -39 in March—a significant step up, but still very weak. The percentile standings for these three categories show sales compared to a year ago at the 8.8 percentile, orders compared to a year ago at the 5.6 percentile, and sales evaluated for the time of year at the 14.8 percentile.

**Wholesale Expectations**: The look-ahead observations, which provide expectations for wholesaling in May, show a similar constellation of readings, with sales compared to a year ago falling to -37 in May from -27 in April and orders compared to a year ago falling to -42 from -38, while sales evaluated for the time of year improved to  16 from  37. That category for wholesale sales improved both in April in real time and in May for expectations; however, it continues to have a very weak percentile standing, at the 17.9 percentile in May, while sales for a year ago have a 6.7 percentile standing and orders for a year ago have a 6.0 percentile standing.

260427.jpg

While some of the global PMI data have improved, these survey data for the U.K. are particularly dour. The war in Ukraine drags on, and there's a new conflict in Iran that has shut the Strait of Hormuz, creating energy problems for much of Europe. More broadly, supply chains have been harmed. In addition, the U.K. is undergoing a bout of political instability, as its Prime Minister is under pressure and a good deal of political uncertainty is being worsened by deteriorating economic performance.

Both the U.K. and the European Monetary Union had been showing some progress on inflation until the Iran war hit. Now, as the oil prices are up so sharply, headline inflation is going to be worse everywhere and there will probably be a bit more attention directed to the core inflation rate. However, the U.K. has had inflation too hot for a while, and it has failed to settle down. At its last meeting, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee warned that if the war was still ongoing at the next meeting, there would be a risk of a rate hike. So, it would seem that a rate hike is going to be in play unless the economy falls off a cliff first, which, based on the distributive trades data, is also something that could happen. The U.K. economy appears to be on very unsound footing, and what happens next is just about anybody's guess.

United Kingdom

U.K. Retail Sales: Worse Than During Covid

260424E.jpg

The onset of the war in Iran appears to have hit the German economy extremely hard as the Ifo survey shows very substantial and broad-based decline across its survey in April. The Ifo survey features readings for five sectors as well as an aggregate reading, and it surveys them for climate, current conditions, and expectations. The decline in the Ifo survey is present for all three concepts and across all five sectors, marking the weakening in April as a highly significant and extremely disturbing development. Only manufacturing in the current conditions survey escapes a month-to-month decline.

**The Ifo sequences**: The **climate** reading fell both overall and across each of the five sectors. **Current conditions** declined for the overall and for four of the five sectors, with manufacturing the sole exception. **Expectations** declined for the overall and for all sectors. Several of the sector declines were for a very substantial magnitude, especially when compared to historic changes in these indexes.

**Monthly changes in readings—severe broad deterioration**
The month-to-month change in the climate reading has weakened more month-to-month 19% of the time. That overall result, however, is boosted by manufacturing where the monthly change has been weaker 35% of the time (on data back to 2011). However, all other sectors have seen climate weaker m/m only 2.3% to 6.3% of the time! The current situation readings weakened, with the headline weakening more m/m 11% of the time. This was boosted by manufacturing, the only sector that improved on the month; its ranking on change was in its 85th percentile—quite good and truly stand-alone good news. The other current changes by sector ranged from construction being weaker 1.7% of the time, to retailing that has been weaker about 30% of the time in terms of m/m changes. Expectation changes were uniformly terrible, with the headline drop weaker only 6.3% of the time and sector change month-to-month weaker between 9% and 1.7% of the time. The monthly weakening was uniform and substantial. I document it with these calculations, but you can also see it on the chart above.

**Climate**: The bottom line is that the all-sector index for climate fell to -20.3 in April from -18 in March, placing it at a 10.5 percentile standing on data since 1993. The sector ranking is the highest for construction with a 42.2 percentile standing and the weakness for services at a 1.1 percentile standing—weaker than the table reading nearly 99% of the time. In terms of percentile standing levels or monthly changes, conditions are closing in on grim.

**Current conditions**: Current conditions saw the all-sector index slip to -5.3 in April from -2.4 in March. The headline ranking stands at a 9.8 percentile mark, making it—like the climate reading—weaker than its current reading only about 10% of the time. The strongest reading under current conditions is for construction which has a 60.6 percentile standing; it is the only ranking in the table above its historic median. Manufacturing, the only sector in the survey that improved month-to-month, has a 22.5 percentile standing, while services record the weakest percentile standing under current conditions, at an 8.4 percentile standing.

**Expectations:** The all-sector index for expectations fell to -25.3 in April from -19.9 in March, placing it at a 6.3 percentile standing. The percentile standings across sectors range from a high of 9.5% for manufacturing to a low of 1.5% for retailing. Up until earlier this year, the Ifo was showing signs of improvement; however, all of that has simply collapsed in the last month. Weakness is across economic concepts and sectors, as documented above. For reference, the table also gives a separate set of rankings on where the various indexes stand since the invasion of Ukraine, since that was another marked event that drove the index, that had been improving after Covid, down to lower levels.  Ranked even on this reduced scale looking at conditions only since the invasion of Ukraine, when conditions have generally been weaker, the current rankings across the Ifo survey remained extremely weak. This is a very disturbing survey for the German economy.

Economy in Brief

Jump to:

U.S. Existing Home Sales Pull Back but Prices Rise

Philadelphia Fed Nonmanufacturing Business Activity Collapses

U.S. Petroleum Prices Plunge as Demand Dries Up

U.S. Petroleum Prices Plunge as Demand Dries Up

U.S. Petroleum Prices Plunge as Demand Dries Up

U.S. Petroleum Prices Plunge as Demand Dries Up

U.S. Petroleum Prices Plunge as Demand Dries Up

EMU Trade Surpluses Expand As the Virus Swirls