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/050715e.jpg" width="353">
Total business inventories rose just 0.1% in May following a downwardly revised 0.2% gain in April. The three month change in inventories dropped to 3.3% (AR) versus the 12.1% peak rate of accumulation through last August. The ratio of inventories-to-sales held at the record low of 1.30.
Retail inventories rose 0.2% in May and the three month change remained low at 2.1% versus the peak of 12.4% last April. Excluding autos, however, retail inventories jumped 0.6% due to a 1.5% (7.1% y/y) surge in furniture.
Factory sector inventories were unchanged for the second month and three month growth fell to 2.7%.
Wholesale inventories rose just 0.1% and three month growth fell to 5.7%. During the last ten years there has been a 64% correlation between the y/y change in wholesale inventories and the change in imports of merchandise.
Overall business sales fell 0.1% (+6.9% y/y) following the 12.2% jump during April.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED06/@ED0601/@ED0601.HTM">Business Inventories</a></th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</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>0.1%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Retail</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Retail excl. Autos</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>10.4%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Total business inventories rose just 0.1% in May following a downwardly revised 0.2% gain in April. The three month change in inventories dropped to 3.3% (AR) versus the 12.1% peak rate of accumulation through last August. The ratio [...]

U.S. Business Inventory Accumulation Continued Slow

<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/050715d.jpg" width="353">
The July Empire State Index of General Business Conditions in New York&#39;s manufacturing industries doubled June&#39;s positive reading and rose to 23.91 versus 10.49. The two figures were the best back-to-back positive indications since March
The new orders component jumped to 19.15, the highest level since January and the shipments index also surged. The employment index gave back most of the prior month&#39;s gain. Like the Philadelphia Fed Index of General Business Conditions, the Empire State Business Conditions Index reflects answers to an independent survey question; it is not a weighted combination of the components.
The prices paid index fell sharply to the lowest level since December 2003.
Expectations for business conditions in six months improved to the highest level this year. Expectations for future capital spending also recovered to the highest level since April.
The Empire State Manufacturing Survey is a monthly survey of manufacturers in New York State conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Participants from across the state in a variety of industries respond to a questionnaire and report the change in a variety of indicators from the previous month. Respondents also state the likely direction of these same indicators six months ahead. April 2002 is the first report, although survey data date back to July 2001.
For more on the Empire State Manufacturing Survey, including methodologies and the latest report, click <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/regional_economy/empiresurvey_overview.html">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S5/@S511/@S511.HTM">Empire State Manufacturing Survey</a> </th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">July &#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">General Business Conditions (diffusion index)</td>
<td>23.91</td>
<td>10.49</td>
<td>34.65</td>
<td>28.76</td>
<td>16.17</td>
<td>7.19</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The July Empire State Index of General Business Conditions in New York's manufacturing industries doubled June's positive reading and rose to 23.91 versus 10.49. The two figures were the best back-to-back positive indications since [...]

Empire State Index Up 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/050715a.jpg" width="353">
Industrial production in June jumped 0.9% and handily beat Consensus expectations for a 0.4% rise. The gain was inflated by warmer weather which raised utility output by 5.3%. Factory sector output rose 0.4% (3.8% y/y) following a downwardly revised 0.4% increase in May.
Output of computers &amp; peripheral equipment jumped 1.3% (12.5% y/y) though high tech output overall rose just 0.3% (17.0% y/y). Excluding the high tech sector factory output rose 0.5% (3.1% y/y) due to a 2.9% (6.9% y/y) rise in motor vehicle output and a 0.8% (9.2% y/y) increase in aerospace. Electrical equipment fell 0.1% (+1.0% y/y) and machinery output rose 0.2% (7.0% y/y).
Total capacity utilization rose to 80.0% and capacity grew 1.1% y/y. Factory sector utilization rose to 78.4% versus 76.5% last June and capacity rose 1.3% y/y.
 The Relationship Between Capacity Utilization and Inflation from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia can be found <a href="http://www.philadelphiafed.org/files/br/Q2_05_Dotsey_Stark.pdf"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EA/@EA.HTM">Production &amp; Capacity</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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">Industrial Production</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer Goods</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business Equipment</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td>9.5%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>-7.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capacity Utilization</td>
<td>80.0%</td>
<td>79.4%</td>
<td>77.8% (6/04)</td>
<td>78.1%</td>
<td>75.5%</td>
<td>75.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Industrial production in June jumped 0.9% and handily beat Consensus expectations for a 0.4% rise. The gain was inflated by warmer weather which raised utility output by 5.3%. Factory sector output rose 0.4% (3.8% y/y) following a [...]

Industrial Production Recovered

<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/050715c.jpg" width="353">
The University of Michigan&#39;s preliminary reading of consumer sentiment in July rose to 96.5 and added 0.5% to the 10.5% increase during June. Consensus expectations had been for a slight pullback to 95.0.
During the last ten years there has been a 74% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the y/y change in real PCE, although the correlation has fallen in recent years.
Consumer expectations rose 1.9% on top of the 12.9% surge during June but the reading of current economic conditions slipped 1.1%.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.The mid-month survey is based on telephone interviews with 250 households nationwide on personal finances and business and buying conditions. The survey is expanded to a total of 500 interviews at month end.
The Weak Jobs Recovery: Whatever Happened To &quot;The American Jobs Machine&quot;? from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can be found <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/epr/forthcoming/freeman.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/@EF/@EF14/@EF1402/@EF1402.HTM">University of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</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">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>96.5</td>
<td>96.0</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>95.2</td>
<td>87.6</td>
<td>89.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>112.0</td>
<td>113.2</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>97.2</td>
<td>97.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Consumer Expectations</td>
<td>86.6</td>
<td>85.0</td>
<td>-5.0%</td>
<td>88.5</td>
<td>81.4</td>
<td>84.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The University of Michigan's preliminary reading of consumer sentiment in July rose to 96.5 and added 0.5% to the 10.5% increase during June. Consensus expectations had been for a slight pullback to 95.0. During the last ten years [...]

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Up A Bit Further

<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/050715b.jpg" width="353">
The producer price index for finished goods was unexpectedly unchanged last month following the 0.6% decline in May which also was unexpected. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% rise in June. Excluding food &amp; energy prices were also surprisingly weak, falling 0.1% versus the expectation for a 0.1% rise.
Prices for core finished consumer goods fell 0.1% (+2.4% y/y) due to to a 2.0% (NSA, +1.4% y/y) decline in passenger car prices. Consumer durable goods prices overall fell 0.4% (+0.5% y/y). Showing strength, core consumer nondurable goods prices rose 0.3% (3.8% y/y) but capital goods prices fell 0.2% (+2.1% y/y).
Finished energy prices rose 2.0% (13.1% y/y) while finished food prices fell 1.1% (+0.1% y/y).
Intermediate goods prices recovered 0.1% of the prior month&#39;s sharp drop as energy prices rose 1.9% (15.0% y/y). Pricing weakness, however, was indicated by the 0.2% decline in core intermediate goods prices.
Crude prices fell another 3.3% due to the 3.1% June decline crude energy prices which has since reversed. Core crude prices added 4.3% to the May decline. Iron &amp; steel scrap prices fell 22.1% (NSA, -15.5% y/y). 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.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">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>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>3.6%</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>2.2%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>-3.3%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>17.5%</td>
<td>25.1%</td>
<td>-10.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-4.3%</td>
<td>-3.6%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>26.6%</td>
<td>12.4%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The producer price index for finished goods was unexpectedly unchanged last month following the 0.6% decline in May which also was unexpected. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% rise in June. Excluding food & energy prices [...]

Producer Prices Unexpectedly Weak

<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/050715b.jpg" width="353">
The producer price index for finished goods was unexpectedly unchanged last month following the 0.6% decline in May which also was unexpected. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% rise in June. Excluding food &amp; energy prices were also surprisingly weak, falling 0.1% versus the expectation for a 0.1% rise.
Prices for core finished consumer goods fell 0.1% (+2.4% y/y) due to to a 2.0% (NSA, +1.4% y/y) decline in passenger car prices. Consumer durable goods prices overall fell 0.4% (+0.5% y/y). Showing strength, core consumer nondurable goods prices rose 0.3% (3.8% y/y) but capital goods prices fell 0.2% (+2.1% y/y).
Finished energy prices rose 2.0% (13.1% y/y) while finished food prices fell 1.1% (+0.1% y/y).
Intermediate goods prices recovered 0.1% of the prior month&#39;s sharp drop as energy prices rose 1.9% (15.0% y/y). Pricing weakness, however, was indicated by the 0.2% decline in core intermediate goods prices.
Crude prices fell another 3.3% due to the 3.1% June decline crude energy prices which has since reversed. Core crude prices added 4.3% to the May decline. Iron &amp; steel scrap prices fell 22.1% (NSA, -15.5% y/y). 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.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E802/@E80201/@E80201.HTM">Producer Price Index</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">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>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>3.6%</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>2.2%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate Goods</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Crude Goods</td>
<td>-3.3%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>17.5%</td>
<td>25.1%</td>
<td>-10.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Core</td>
<td>-4.3%</td>
<td>-3.6%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>26.6%</td>
<td>12.4%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Consumer Sentiment Up A Bit Further 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 15, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715c.jpg" width="353">
The University of Michigan&#39;s preliminary reading of consumer sentiment in July rose to 96.5 and added 0.5% to the 10.5% increase during June. Consensus expectations had been for a slight pullback to 95.0.
During the last ten years there has been a 74% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the y/y change in real PCE, although the correlation has fallen in recent years.
Consumer expectations rose 1.9% on top of the 12.9% surge during June but the reading of current economic conditions slipped 1.1%.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.The mid-month survey is based on telephone interviews with 250 households nationwide on personal finances and business and buying conditions. The survey is expanded to a total of 500 interviews at month end.
The Weak Jobs Recovery: Whatever Happened To &quot;The American Jobs Machine&quot;? from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can be found <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/epr/forthcoming/freeman.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/@EF/@EF14/@EF1402/@EF1402.HTM">University of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</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">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>96.5</td>
<td>96.0</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>95.2</td>
<td>87.6</td>
<td>89.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>112.0</td>
<td>113.2</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>97.2</td>
<td>97.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Consumer Expectations</td>
<td>86.6</td>
<td>85.0</td>
<td>-5.0%</td>
<td>88.5</td>
<td>81.4</td>
<td>84.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Industrial Production Recovered 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 15, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715a.jpg" width="353">
Industrial production in June jumped 0.9% and handily beat Consensus expectations for a 0.4% rise. The gain was inflated by warmer weather which raised utility output by 5.3%. Factory sector output rose 0.4% (3.8% y/y) following a downwardly revised 0.4% increase in May.
Output of computers &amp; peripheral equipment jumped 1.3% (12.5% y/y) though high tech output overall rose just 0.3% (17.0% y/y). Excluding the high tech sector factory output rose 0.5% (3.1% y/y) due to a 2.9% (6.9% y/y) rise in motor vehicle output and a 0.8% (9.2% y/y) increase in aerospace. Electrical equipment fell 0.1% (+1.0% y/y) and machinery output rose 0.2% (7.0% y/y).
Total capacity utilization rose to 80.0% and capacity grew 1.1% y/y. Factory sector utilization rose to 78.4% versus 76.5% last June and capacity rose 1.3% y/y.
 The Relationship Between Capacity Utilization and Inflation from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia can be found <a href="http://www.philadelphiafed.org/files/br/Q2_05_Dotsey_Stark.pdf"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EA/@EA.HTM">Production &amp; Capacity</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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">Industrial Production</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer Goods</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business Equipment</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td>9.5%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>-7.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capacity Utilization</td>
<td>80.0%</td>
<td>79.4%</td>
<td>77.8% (6/04)</td>
<td>78.1%</td>
<td>75.5%</td>
<td>75.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Empire State Index Up Sharply 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 15, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715d.jpg" width="353">
The July Empire State Index of General Business Conditions in New York&#39;s manufacturing industries doubled June&#39;s positive reading and rose to 23.91 versus 10.49. The two figures were the best back-to-back positive indications since March
The new orders component jumped to 19.15, the highest level since January and the shipments index also surged. The employment index gave back most of the prior month&#39;s gain. Like the Philadelphia Fed Index of General Business Conditions, the Empire State Business Conditions Index reflects answers to an independent survey question; it is not a weighted combination of the components.
The prices paid index fell sharply to the lowest level since December 2003.
Expectations for business conditions in six months improved to the highest level this year. Expectations for future capital spending also recovered to the highest level since April.
The Empire State Manufacturing Survey is a monthly survey of manufacturers in New York State conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Participants from across the state in a variety of industries respond to a questionnaire and report the change in a variety of indicators from the previous month. Respondents also state the likely direction of these same indicators six months ahead. April 2002 is the first report, although survey data date back to July 2001.
For more on the Empire State Manufacturing Survey, including methodologies and the latest report, click <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/regional_economy/empiresurvey_overview.html">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S5/@S511/@S511.HTM">Empire State Manufacturing Survey</a> </th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">July &#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">General Business Conditions (diffusion index)</td>
<td>23.91</td>
<td>10.49</td>
<td>34.65</td>
<td>28.76</td>
<td>16.17</td>
<td>7.19</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Business Inventory Accumulation Continued Slow 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 15, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715e.jpg" width="353">
Total business inventories rose just 0.1% in May following a downwardly revised 0.2% gain in April. The three month change in inventories dropped to 3.3% (AR) versus the 12.1% peak rate of accumulation through last August. The ratio of inventories-to-sales held at the record low of 1.30.
Retail inventories rose 0.2% in May and the three month change remained low at 2.1% versus the peak of 12.4% last April. Excluding autos, however, retail inventories jumped 0.6% due to a 1.5% (7.1% y/y) surge in furniture.
Factory sector inventories were unchanged for the second month and three month growth fell to 2.7%.
Wholesale inventories rose just 0.1% and three month growth fell to 5.7%. During the last ten years there has been a 64% correlation between the y/y change in wholesale inventories and the change in imports of merchandise.
Overall business sales fell 0.1% (+6.9% y/y) following the 12.2% jump during April.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED06/@ED0601/@ED0601.HTM">Business Inventories</a></th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</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>0.1%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Retail</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Retail excl. Autos</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>10.4%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Israel's Consumer Prices Are Flat in June; Wholesale Prices Flat, but Up More Than 5% in Year 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> July 15, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715f.jpg" width="353">
Israel&#39;s monthly price data were reported today by the Central Bureau of Statistics. The June consumer price index, like that in the US, was flat. It had risen 0.2% in May. The year-on-year rate is a mere 0.3%. For wholesale prices, the index for June fell 0.4%, although prior increases have put the year-on-year rate at 5.1%.
It&#39;s interesting to see in the first graph that the consumer and wholesale indexes moved along pretty much the same trend until 2002. Since then, the consumer price index has been almost flat, while the wholesale index has continued along its former trend or even somewhat stronger. Wholesale prices are domestic prices, those charged by manufacturers selling their finished output &quot;at the factory gate&quot;. Input costs are likely a major determinant, and over the last five years there has been some correlation with oil prices, 57%, as seen in the second graph. Notably, this relationship was not so clear in prior years, but perhaps the wide swings in the oil market since 2000 have had an impact on this smaller country.
But then how can consumer prices be so stable? A quick look at the value of the shekel will give a good clue. In the third graph, it is seen to run very close to the level of the CPI. The foreign exchange rate is no trivial matter for the final price level. For the economy as a whole, imports run right at 50% of GDP. With imports so important, prices of imported products matter a great deal to pricing, so the fact that the shekel has steadied and even improved against the US dollar since mid-2002 has probably helped greatly in flattening the Israeli CPI. <img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715g.jpg" width="353"> <img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050715h.jpg" width="353">

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">% Changes; Yr/Yr calculated from NSA</th>
<th scope="col">June 2005</th>
<th scope="col">May 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Year/ Year</th>
December/December
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
<td>2002</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Prices: &quot;General Index&quot; (SA)</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>-1.9</td>
<td>6.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Memo:&nbsp; Exchange Rate: Shekels/US$</td>
<td>4.4849</td>
<td>4.3737</td>
<td>4.5166</td>
<td>4.4820</td>
<td>4.5483</td>
<td>4.7378</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Wholesale Prices (NSA)</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>5.1</td>
<td>7.6</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>6.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Fuel&nbsp; (NSA)</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>5.2</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>5.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Carol Stone, CBE

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050714e.jpg" width="353">
Several countries reported June CPI today, and the results generally suggest that overall inflation remains quiescent. Prices in both Germany and Italy were flat after a 0.3% rise in May, and year-on-year rates four of the six reporting countries, which also include Spain, Finland, New Zealand and the US, remain at or below their pace during 2004.
Inflation is always of interest, but all the more presently because of the surge in energy prices. So we keep checking to see if there has been an acceleration in overall inflation or, if available, in the overall rate excluding energy. This latter is important for showing whether higher energy costs are being pushed through to the prices of other goods and services. In the three countries for which a total excluding energy is published, Germany, Spain and the US, this year/year rate was lower in June than it had been six months ago.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050714f.jpg" width="353">
In this same time-period comparison, the 12-month percent change in June versus that for December 2004, we can discern differing trends in non-energy sectors that might help us understand how this moderate inflation is being sustained. Clothing prices are weak in almost every country, and in the places where they are not slowing, they are moving evenly with 2004&#39;s pace. Communications prices continue to decline outright, though less rapidly in some countries. Health care costs -- at least the portion covered here, the part consumers actually pay -- are generally rising at about the same rate. Food and household goods prices are mixed among the various reporting countries. Thus, apart from the clothing sector, where weakness is widespread, there is no systematic pattern of price change among the categories and the countries. This randomness is probably beneficial to the prevention of a general acceleration of prices, since it indicates considerable resistance to higher prices in disparate places in the world.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">% Changes Yr/Yr calculated from NSA</th>
<th scope="col">June 2005</th>
<th scope="col">May 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Year/ Year</th>
December/December
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
<td>2002</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany (SA)</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>2.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Energy (SA)</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>0.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Spain (NSA)</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>4.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Energy (NSA)</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>4.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy (NSA)</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Finland (NSA)</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>1.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">New Zealand (NSA)</td>
<td>0.9*</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>2.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Memo: US (SA)</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>2.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; ex Energy (SA)</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>1.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Several countries reported June CPI today, and the results generally suggest that overall inflation remains quiescent. Prices in both Germany and Italy were flat after a 0.3% rise in May, and year-on-year rates four of the six [...]

Several Nations' CPI's Remain Moderate Despite Rapidly Rising Energy Costs

<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/050714c.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance jumped 16,000 to 336,000 last week after a revised 9,000 increase the week earlier. Consensus expectations had been for 320,000 claims.
During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 75% correlation between the level of initial claims for unemployment insurance and the monthly change in payroll employment. There has been a (negative) 65% correlation with the level of continuing claims.
The four week moving average of initial claims was about stable at 320,750 (-5.7% y/y).
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance jumped 45,000 following a revised 25,000 decline during the prior week.
The insured unemployment rate ticked up to 2.1%.
The Cost of Business Cycles for Unskilled Workers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can be found <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr214.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/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">07/09/05</th>
<th scope="col">07/02/05</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">Initial Claims</td>
<td>336</td>
<td>320</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>343</td>
<td>402</td>
<td>404</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>2,617</td>
<td>-10.7%</td>
<td>2,926</td>
<td>3,531</td>
<td>3,570</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Initial claims for unemployment insurance jumped 16,000 to 336,000 last week after a revised 9,000 increase the week earlier. Consensus expectations had been for 320,000 claims. During the last ten years there has been a (negative) [...]

Initial Claims for Jobless Insurance Up Again

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

250501A8.jpg

250501B8.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

250501C8.jpg

250501D8.jpg

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

Economy in Brief: July 2005

Jump to:

U.S. Business Inventory Accumulation Continued Slow

Empire State Index Up Sharply

Industrial Production Recovered

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Up A Bit Further

Producer Prices Unexpectedly Weak

Producer Prices Unexpectedly Weak

Several Nations' CPI's Remain Moderate Despite Rapidly Rising Energy Costs

Initial Claims for Jobless Insurance Up Again