Tom Moeller

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050419a.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales rose 1.0% last week according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey. Coming on the heels of 0.3% increases during the prior two weeks, the increase lifted the average level in April up 0.4% versus March when sales moved sideways for much of the month.
During the last ten years there has been a 56% correlation between the y/y change in chain store sales and the change in non-auto retail sales less gasoline, as published by the US Census Department. Chain store sales correspond directly with roughly 14% of nonauto retail sales less gasoline.
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC gained 0.3% (-0.8% y/y) for the first rise in four weeks.
The ICSC-UBS retail chain-store sales index is constructed using the same-store sales (stores open for one year) reported by 78 stores of seven retailers: Dayton Hudson, Federated, Kmart, May, J.C. Penney, Sears and Wal-Mart.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">04/16/05</th>
<th scope="col">04/09/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>457.4</td>
<td>452.9</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Chain store sales rose 1.0% last week according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey. Coming on the heels of 0.3% increases during the prior two weeks, the increase lifted the average level in April up [...]

Chain Store Sales Pass A "Soft Spot"

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050419c.jpg" width="353">
Housing starts fell a sharp 17.6% from the record high the prior month which was revised slightly higher from the initial report. March starts of 1.837M were the lowest since November of last year.Consensus expectations had been for a lesser decline to 2.10M starts.
Single-family starts of 1.54M slid 14.4% m/m from the upwardly revised record high in February. Single family starts in the Northeast dropped 19.9% (-16.9% y/y) while single family starts in the Midwest reversed all of the prior month&#39;s jump with a 18.5% (-8.5% y/y) slump. Single family starts in the South fell 15.3% (-4.8% y/y) and starts in the West were off 7.8% (+0.2% y/y).
Multi family starts cratered by nearly a third to the lowest level since June of last year.
Building permits fell 4.0% but the decline the prior month was revised shallower.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E901/@E90101/@E90101.HTM">Housing Starts (000s, AR)</a> </th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>1,837</td>
<td>2,229</td>
<td>-8.2%</td>
<td>1,952</td>
<td>1,853</td>
<td>1,7 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Single-family</td>
<td>1,539</td>
<td>1,798</td>
<td>-5.2%</td>
<td>1,605</td>
<td>1,505</td>
<td>1,363</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Multi-family</td>
<td>298</td>
<td>431</td>
<td>-20.7%</td>
<td>347</td>
<td>348</td>
<td>347</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Building Permits</td>
<td>2,023</td>
<td>2,107</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2,035</td>
<td>1,8 89</td>
<td>1,749</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Housing starts fell a sharp 17.6% from the record high the prior month which was revised slightly higher from the initial report. March starts of 1.837M were the lowest since November of last year.Consensus expectations had been for a [...]

Housing Starts Off Sharply

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050419b.jpg" width="353">
The Producer Price Index for finished goods rose 0.7% in March, the largest one month rise since November and surpassed Consensus expectations for a 0.6% gain. Excluding food &amp; energy prices, however, the PPI rose 0.1% for the second consecutive month. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.2% increase.
Finished energy prices advanced 3.3% (15.3% y/y) as gasoline prices jumped 12.3% (31.9% y/y) and fuel oil prices rose 16.1% (55.8% y/y). In April, prices for crude petroleum and for refined petroleum products are down versus March.
Core finished consumer goods prices rose 0.1% (2.6% y/y). Consumer durable goods prices fell by 0.1% (1.6% y/y) for the second consecutive monthly decline. Passenger cars fell again (+1.1% y/y) and home electronic equipment prices were off 0.2% (-4.0% y/y). Household appliance prices rose 0.3% (1.8% y/y).
Core consumer nondurable goods prices rose 0.1% (3.3% y/y) and capital goods prices increased 0.3% (+2.7% y/y). Finished food prices rose 0.3% (3.8% y/y).
Intermediate goods prices posted the largest increase since October. The 1.0% advance reflected a 3.7% (16.7% y/y) gain in energy prices. Core intermediate prices rose 0.3% though plywood prices fell (-13.9% y/y) as did hardwood lumber prices (-0.8% y/y).
Crude prices jumped 4.3% on the strength of surging oil prices, up 5.5% (28.4% y/y). Core crude prices rose for the first month in four. The 1.0% increase reflected price jumps for copper (15.9% y/y) &amp; aluminum (8.9% y/y) base scrap. During the last thirty years &quot;core&quot; crude prices have been a fair indicator of industrial sector activity with a 48% correlation between the six month change in core crude prices and the change in factory sector industrial production.
Inflation Targeting under Commitment and Discretion from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is available <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/review/2005/dennis.pdf"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Finished Goods</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>8.4%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
<td>17.6%</td>
<td>25.1%</td>
<td>-10.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>26.5%</td>
<td>12.4%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Producer Price Index for finished goods rose 0.7% in March, the largest one month rise since November and surpassed Consensus expectations for a 0.6% gain. Excluding food & energy prices, however, the PPI rose 0.1% for the second [...]

PPI Again Boosted by Petroleum

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050419b.jpg" width="353">
The Producer Price Index for finished goods rose 0.7% in March, the largest one month rise since November and surpassed Consensus expectations for a 0.6% gain. Excluding food &amp; energy prices, however, the PPI rose 0.1% for the second consecutive month. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.2% increase.
Finished energy prices advanced 3.3% (15.3% y/y) as gasoline prices jumped 12.3% (31.9% y/y) and fuel oil prices rose 16.1% (55.8% y/y). In April, prices for crude petroleum and for refined petroleum products are down versus March.
Core finished consumer goods prices rose 0.1% (2.6% y/y). Consumer durable goods prices fell by 0.1% (1.6% y/y) for the second consecutive monthly decline. Passenger cars fell again (+1.1% y/y) and home electronic equipment prices were off 0.2% (-4.0% y/y). Household appliance prices rose 0.3% (1.8% y/y).
Core consumer nondurable goods prices rose 0.1% (3.3% y/y) and capital goods prices increased 0.3% (+2.7% y/y). Finished food prices rose 0.3% (3.8% y/y).
Intermediate goods prices posted the largest increase since October. The 1.0% advance reflected a 3.7% (16.7% y/y) gain in energy prices. Core intermediate prices rose 0.3% though plywood prices fell (-13.9% y/y) as did hardwood lumber prices (-0.8% y/y).
Crude prices jumped 4.3% on the strength of surging oil prices, up 5.5% (28.4% y/y). Core crude prices rose for the first month in four. The 1.0% increase reflected price jumps for copper (15.9% y/y) &amp; aluminum (8.9% y/y) base scrap. During the last thirty years &quot;core&quot; crude prices have been a fair indicator of industrial sector activity with a 48% correlation between the six month change in core crude prices and the change in factory sector industrial production.
Inflation Targeting under Commitment and Discretion from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is available <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/review/2005/dennis.pdf"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Finished Goods</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>8.4%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
<td>17.6%</td>
<td>25.1%</td>
<td>-10.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>26.5%</td>
<td>12.4%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Housing Starts Off Sharply 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 19, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050419c.jpg" width="353">
Housing starts fell a sharp 17.6% from the record high the prior month which was revised slightly higher from the initial report. March starts of 1.837M were the lowest since November of last year.Consensus expectations had been for a lesser decline to 2.10M starts.
Single-family starts of 1.54M slid 14.4% m/m from the upwardly revised record high in February. Single family starts in the Northeast dropped 19.9% (-16.9% y/y) while single family starts in the Midwest reversed all of the prior month&#39;s jump with a 18.5% (-8.5% y/y) slump. Single family starts in the South fell 15.3% (-4.8% y/y) and starts in the West were off 7.8% (+0.2% y/y).
Multi family starts cratered by nearly a third to the lowest level since June of last year.
Building permits fell 4.0% but the decline the prior month was revised shallower.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E901/@E90101/@E90101.HTM">Housing Starts (000s, AR)</a> </th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>1,837</td>
<td>2,229</td>
<td>-8.2%</td>
<td>1,952</td>
<td>1,853</td>
<td>1,7 10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Single-family</td>
<td>1,539</td>
<td>1,798</td>
<td>-5.2%</td>
<td>1,605</td>
<td>1,505</td>
<td>1,363</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Multi-family</td>
<td>298</td>
<td>431</td>
<td>-20.7%</td>
<td>347</td>
<td>348</td>
<td>347</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Building Permits</td>
<td>2,023</td>
<td>2,107</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2,035</td>
<td>1,8 89</td>
<td>1,749</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Chain Store Sales Pass A "Soft Spot" 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 19, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050419a.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales rose 1.0% last week according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey. Coming on the heels of 0.3% increases during the prior two weeks, the increase lifted the average level in April up 0.4% versus March when sales moved sideways for much of the month.
During the last ten years there has been a 56% correlation between the y/y change in chain store sales and the change in non-auto retail sales less gasoline, as published by the US Census Department. Chain store sales correspond directly with roughly 14% of nonauto retail sales less gasoline.
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC gained 0.3% (-0.8% y/y) for the first rise in four weeks.
The ICSC-UBS retail chain-store sales index is constructed using the same-store sales (stores open for one year) reported by 78 stores of seven retailers: Dayton Hudson, Federated, Kmart, May, J.C. Penney, Sears and Wal-Mart.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">04/16/05</th>
<th scope="col">04/09/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>457.4</td>
<td>452.9</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
More Gloom from Germany 
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> April 19 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050419d.jpg" width="353">
After becoming slightly more optimistic regarding the German economic outlook six months ahead in each of the first three months of this year, the institutional investors and analysts who respond to the ZEW survey became decidedly more pessimistic in April. The excess of optimists over pessimists dropped to 20.1% in April from 36.3% in March and from 59.1% a year ago.
The same but more pessimistic trend is apparent in the respondents&#39; view of current conditions in Germany. In April, the percentage of respondents who considered current conditions bad was 73% greater than those who considered them good. The -73% figure compares with -66% in March and -72.5% in April of last year. In general, pessimistic appraisals of current conditions tend to outweigh the optimistic appraisals, while optimistic appraisals of expectations of future conditions tend to outweigh the pessimistic appraisals, as can be seen in the attached chart. (&quot;Hope springs eternal in the human breast./ Man never is, but always to be, blest.&quot;) <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050419e.jpg" width="353">
The ZEW survey also covers opinions on current conditions and expectations in the Euro zone as a whole. Since Germany represents such a large part of the Euro zone, it is not surprising that appraisals of current conditions and expectations in the Euro Zone tend to be similar to those of Germany. Expectations of economic conditions in Germany and in the Euro Zone are shown in the second chart.
With their pessimistic outlook for the economy, the institutional investors and analysts see little to cheer about in the profit outlook. There are only three industries, banking, telecommunications and information technology, in which the optimists outweigh the pessimists by more than 50%. The profit expectations for selected industries are shown in the table below.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/GERMANY/GERMANY.HTM">GERMANY %</a></th>
<th scope="col">Apr 05</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 05</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 04</th>
<th scope="col">M/M Dif</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y Dif</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;2004&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;2003</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp; 2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Expectations</td>
<td>20.1</td>
<td>36.3</td>
<td>49.7</td>
<td>-16.2</td>
<td>-29.6</td>
<td>49.6</td>
<td>38.4</td>
<td>45.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Current conditions</td>
<td>-73.0</td>
<td>-66.0</td>
<td>-42.5</td>
<td>-7.0</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>-67.7</td>
<td>-92.6</td>
<td>-83.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Profit expectations</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Banking</td>
<td>52.4</td>
<td>55.5</td>
<td>67.2</td>
<td>-3.1</td>
<td>-14.8</td>
<td>59.6</td>
<td>30.5</td>
<td>-8.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Telecommunications</td>
<td>51.1</td>
<td>56.5</td>
<td>69.2</td>
<td>-5.4</td>
<td>-18.1</td>
<td>62.5</td>
<td>49.7</td>
<td>9.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Information technology</td>
<td>52.5</td>
<td>59.4</td>
<td>71.9</td>
<td>-6.9</td>
<td>-19.4</td>
<td>63.0</td>
<td>45.2</td>
<td>17.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer/trade</td>
<td>-26.9</td>
<td>-22.6</td>
<td>-13.7</td>
<td>-4.3</td>
<td>-13.2</td>
<td>-18.2</td>
<td>-33.7</td>
<td>-28.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Machinery</td>
<td>37.3</td>
<td>45.6</td>
<td>52.4</td>
<td>-8.3</td>
<td>-15.1</td>
<td>53.4</td>
<td>7.0</td>
<td>5.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;Vehicle/automotive&nbsp;</td>
<td>-19.0</td>
<td>-2.9</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>-16.1</td>
<td>-24.9</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>-8.2</td>
<td>-6.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/GERMANY/GERMANY.HTM">EURO ZONE %</a></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Expectations</td>
<td>24.6</td>
<td>37.3</td>
<td>59.1</td>
<td>-12.7</td>
<td>-34.5</td>
<td>52.1</td>
<td>48.9</td>
<td>53.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Current conditions</td>
<td>-32.8</td>
<td>-24.8</td>
<td>-55.4</td>
<td>-5.0</td>
<td>21.6</td>
<td>-41.4</td>
<td>-78.5</td>
<td>67.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Louise Curley

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050418e.jpg" width="353">
On Wednesday, April 20, the central bank of Romania will issue new banknotes and coins of the new leu, which will become the legal currency as of July 1. One new leu is equal to 1,000 old lei.
Romania is one of a number of countries that have redenominated there currencies after they have tamed the inflation that had eroded the value of their currencies. Romania experienced three bouts of hyper inflation in the nineties--the first, producing an inflation rate as measured by the year-to-year percent increase in the consumer price index of 350% reached in March 1992, the second with a monthly peak of 309.7% in December 1993 and the third, with a monthly peak of 177.4% in June , 1997. The high rates of inflation led to continuing declines in the currency. The attached chart shows inflation, measured by the year-to-year percent increase in the consumer price index and the monthly exchange rate, Leu/US$, with the latter plotted on an inverted scale. Inflation in Romania has been declining slowly since early 2000 and has now reached 8.6% in March of this year.
A decline in the leu/US$ means that the dollar has depreciated against the leu or that the leu has appreciated against the dollar. (In the Haver data bases when the exchange rate is listed in terms of the foreign currency to the dollar, the percentage changes calculated are the percentage changes in the dollar relative to the foreign currency. In order to calculate the percent change in the foreign currency relative to the dollar, one takes the reciprocal of (1+the change in the dollar) and subtracts 1. For example the change in the leu/US$ from March 2004 to March 2005 was -14.99%, meaning that the dollar depreciated 14.99% against the leu or that the leu appreciated {(1/85.01)-1} or 17.6%.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/EMERGECW/@E3/@E3.htm">Romania</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar 05</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 05</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 04</th>
<th scope="col">M/M</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;2004&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;2003</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp; 2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Price Index (%Y/Y)</td>
<td>8.63</td>
<td>8.92</td>
<td>13.09</td>
<td>-0.19</td>
<td>-4.46</td>
<td>11.86</td>
<td>15.36</td>
<td>22.51</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Lei/US$ (EOP)</td>
<td>28429</td>
<td>27473</td>
<td>33440</td>
<td>3.48</td>
<td>-14.99</td>
<td>-1082</td>
<td>-2.70</td>
<td>6.02</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

On Wednesday, April 20, the central bank of Romania will issue new banknotes and coins of the new leu, which will become the legal currency as of July 1. One new leu is equal to 1,000 old lei. Romania is one of a number of countries [...]

Romania to Redenominate the Leu in July: 1 New Leu = 1,000 Old Leu

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050418a.jpg" width="353">
Revenues from Tax Day (April 15th) for 2005 won&#39;t be tallied for another month, but the figures for the first half of FY 2005 indicate the U.S. Federal government&#39;s budget deficit lessened just $6.8B versus the first half of FY 2004. The scant improvement is off the pace needed to meet the latest CBO projection of a $365B deficit for FY 2005.
Growth in net receipts for the first six months of FY05 improved to 10.4%, more than triple the growth during the first six months of FY04. Individual tax receipts grew 8.5% versus a 1.2% decline in the first six months of FY04 and corporate tax receipts remained on a pace which doubled the year earlier level. Reflecting the improved job market, employment taxes grew 6.5% versus 1.3% growth last year.
Offsetting the improvement in revenue growth was steady, strong growth in federal outlays, about stable at 7.1% versus the first six months of 2005. Growth in Medicare outlays picked up to 9.5% versus 6.6% and social security outlays grew 5.4%, up from 4.2% in 2004. Veterans benefits grew 17.4%. These gains offset deceleration in defense spending which grew 7.3%, less than the year earlier rate but interest expense, up 9.1, started to grow again with higher rates.
An Analysis of the President&#39;s Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2006 from the Congressional Budget Office is available <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6146&amp;sequence=0"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E1/@E106/@E10602/@E10602.HTM">US Government Finance</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">FY &#39;05 - YTD</th>
<th scope="col">FY2004</th>
<th scope="col">FY2003</th>
<th scope="col">FY2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Budget Balance</td>
<td>$-71.2B</td>
<td>$-113.9B</td>
<td>$-294.6B</td>
<td>$-412.1B</td>
<td>$-377.6B</td>
<td>$-157.8B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Net Revenues</td>
<td>$148.7B</td>
<td>$100.9B</td>
<td>10.4%</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
<td>-6.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Net Outlays</td>
<td>$220.0B</td>
<td>$214.8B</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Revenues from Tax Day (April 15th) for 2005 won't be tallied for another month, but the figures for the first half of FY 2005 indicate the U.S. Federal government's budget deficit lessened just $6.8B versus the first half of FY 2004. [...]

U.S. Budget Deficit - Tax Day 2005

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050418b.jpg" width="353">
The 1Q &#39;05 Composite Business Index published by the Manufacturers&#39; Alliance/MAPI improved slightly to 71 from 70 the prior quarter.
Since 1992 there has been a 68% correlation between the Composite Index Level and quarterly growth in factory sector output.
The current orders index improved a point to 90. The export orders index also nudged up a point to 90, but that was a new record level.
The profit margins index slipped modestly for the second quarter but remained near a record level and capital spending intentions for the coming year fell modestly.
For the latest press release from the MAPI click <a href="http://mapi.net/html/prelease.cfm?release_id=1064">here</a>. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050418d.jpg" width="353"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050418c.jpg" width="353">

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveys/@SE/@SE.HTM">Manufacturers&#39; Alliance/MAPI Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">1Q &#39;05</th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">1Q &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Business Index</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>78</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>60</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The 1Q '05 Composite Business Index published by the Manufacturers' Alliance/MAPI improved slightly to 71 from 70 the prior quarter. Since 1992 there has been a 68% correlation between the Composite Index Level and quarterly growth in [...]

MAPI Business Outlook Improved

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050418b.jpg" width="353">
The 1Q &#39;05 Composite Business Index published by the Manufacturers&#39; Alliance/MAPI improved slightly to 71 from 70 the prior quarter.
Since 1992 there has been a 68% correlation between the Composite Index Level and quarterly growth in factory sector output.
The current orders index improved a point to 90. The export orders index also nudged up a point to 90, but that was a new record level.
The profit margins index slipped modestly for the second quarter but remained near a record level and capital spending intentions for the coming year fell modestly.
For the latest press release from the MAPI click <a href="http://mapi.net/html/prelease.cfm?release_id=1064">here</a>. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050418d.jpg" width="353"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050418c.jpg" width="353">

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveys/@SE/@SE.HTM">Manufacturers&#39; Alliance/MAPI Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">1Q &#39;05</th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">1Q &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Composite Business Index</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>78</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>60</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Budget Deficit - Tax Day 2005 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 18, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050418a.jpg" width="353">
Revenues from Tax Day (April 15th) for 2005 won&#39;t be tallied for another month, but the figures for the first half of FY 2005 indicate the U.S. Federal government&#39;s budget deficit lessened just $6.8B versus the first half of FY 2004. The scant improvement is off the pace needed to meet the latest CBO projection of a $365B deficit for FY 2005.
Growth in net receipts for the first six months of FY05 improved to 10.4%, more than triple the growth during the first six months of FY04. Individual tax receipts grew 8.5% versus a 1.2% decline in the first six months of FY04 and corporate tax receipts remained on a pace which doubled the year earlier level. Reflecting the improved job market, employment taxes grew 6.5% versus 1.3% growth last year.
Offsetting the improvement in revenue growth was steady, strong growth in federal outlays, about stable at 7.1% versus the first six months of 2005. Growth in Medicare outlays picked up to 9.5% versus 6.6% and social security outlays grew 5.4%, up from 4.2% in 2004. Veterans benefits grew 17.4%. These gains offset deceleration in defense spending which grew 7.3%, less than the year earlier rate but interest expense, up 9.1, started to grow again with higher rates.
An Analysis of the President&#39;s Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2006 from the Congressional Budget Office is available <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6146&amp;sequence=0"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E1/@E106/@E10602/@E10602.HTM">US Government Finance</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">FY &#39;05 - YTD</th>
<th scope="col">FY2004</th>
<th scope="col">FY2003</th>
<th scope="col">FY2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Budget Balance</td>
<td>$-71.2B</td>
<td>$-113.9B</td>
<td>$-294.6B</td>
<td>$-412.1B</td>
<td>$-377.6B</td>
<td>$-157.8B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Net Revenues</td>
<td>$148.7B</td>
<td>$100.9B</td>
<td>10.4%</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>-3.8%</td>
<td>-6.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Net Outlays</td>
<td>$220.0B</td>
<td>$214.8B</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Romania to Redenominate the Leu in July:  1 New Leu = 1,000 Old Leu  
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> April 18, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050418e.jpg" width="353">
On Wednesday, April 20, the central bank of Romania will issue new banknotes and coins of the new leu, which will become the legal currency as of July 1. One new leu is equal to 1,000 old lei.
Romania is one of a number of countries that have redenominated there currencies after they have tamed the inflation that had eroded the value of their currencies. Romania experienced three bouts of hyper inflation in the nineties--the first, producing an inflation rate as measured by the year-to-year percent increase in the consumer price index of 350% reached in March 1992, the second with a monthly peak of 309.7% in December 1993 and the third, with a monthly peak of 177.4% in June , 1997. The high rates of inflation led to continuing declines in the currency. The attached chart shows inflation, measured by the year-to-year percent increase in the consumer price index and the monthly exchange rate, Leu/US$, with the latter plotted on an inverted scale. Inflation in Romania has been declining slowly since early 2000 and has now reached 8.6% in March of this year.
A decline in the leu/US$ means that the dollar has depreciated against the leu or that the leu has appreciated against the dollar. (In the Haver data bases when the exchange rate is listed in terms of the foreign currency to the dollar, the percentage changes calculated are the percentage changes in the dollar relative to the foreign currency. In order to calculate the percent change in the foreign currency relative to the dollar, one takes the reciprocal of (1+the change in the dollar) and subtracts 1. For example the change in the leu/US$ from March 2004 to March 2005 was -14.99%, meaning that the dollar depreciated 14.99% against the leu or that the leu appreciated {(1/85.01)-1} or 17.6%.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/EMERGECW/@E3/@E3.htm">Romania</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar 05</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 05</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 04</th>
<th scope="col">M/M</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;2004&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;2003</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp; 2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Price Index (%Y/Y)</td>
<td>8.63</td>
<td>8.92</td>
<td>13.09</td>
<td>-0.19</td>
<td>-4.46</td>
<td>11.86</td>
<td>15.36</td>
<td>22.51</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Lei/US$ (EOP)</td>
<td>28429</td>
<td>27473</td>
<td>33440</td>
<td>3.48</td>
<td>-14.99</td>
<td>-1082</td>
<td>-2.70</td>
<td>6.02</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

MAPI Business Outlook Improvedаа

USD/EUR exchange rate uncoupling from interest rate differential

Widespread downgrading of 2025 GDP outlook

Trade and fiscal policy uncertainty has exploded with the new administration

Much lower US electricity costs gives it a competitive advantage

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

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

US policy gyrations boosting policy uncertainty worldwide

Expected tariff hikes have boosted inflation expectations

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

US economy expected to outperform other major economies in 2025

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

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

Heavy US manufacturing states underperforming while Sun Belt states outperforming

Rising long-term yields a global phenomenon

US financial market concerns shifting from growth to inflation

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

Policy uncertainty has surged since the US national elections.

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

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

Headline US PCE inflation elevated by sticky services prices

US and global equity prices have recently diverged

US leading global upturn in economic surprises

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

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

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

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

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

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Andrew Cates

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

250501Z1.jpg

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

250501Z2.jpg

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

250501Z3.jpg

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

250501Z4.jpg

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

250501Z5.jpg

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

250501Z6.jpg

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

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

Charts of the Week: Tariff Truce, Tenuous Trust

250501F20.jpg

250501G20.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

250501H20.jpg

250501I20.jpg

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

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Fall in April

250501J5.jpg

250501K5.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

250501L5.jpg

250501M5.jpg

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

U.S. ISM Manufacturing Index Indicates Contraction in April

Winnie Tapasanun

250501N.jpg

250501O.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

250501P.jpg

250501Q.jpg

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

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

Carol Stone, CBE

250501A8.jpg

250501B8.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

250501C8.jpg

250501D8.jpg

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

Economy in Brief: April 2005

Jump to:

Chain Store Sales Pass A "Soft Spot"

Housing Starts Off Sharply

PPI Again Boosted by Petroleum

PPI Again Boosted by Petroleum

Romania to Redenominate the Leu in July: 1 New Leu = 1,000 Old Leu

U.S. Budget Deficit - Tax Day 2005

MAPI Business Outlook Improved

MAPI Business Outlook Improvedаа