Robert Brusca

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100512g.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>It was hardly a spectacular number for Q1 GDP from EMU
although the 0.2% Q/Q gain did beat the expected gain of just 0.1% Q/Q.
GDP is rising Yr/Yr for the first time Since Q3 2008 and that is
something. France, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany have positive
Yr/Yr gains for GDP among the early GDP reporters. The UK and Greece
are still showing Yr/Yr GDP declines. Germany and France show the
strongest EU/EMU Yr/Yr gains among those that have reported at 1.5% and
1.2%, respectively. Both are short of the US mark of 2.5%. The US
recovery seems to have gathered pace while in Europe growth rates are
still struggling to cobble together positive numbers.</p>
<p>Obviously in the current situation we are eager to see results
from Spain, Portugal and Ireland, but they have not yet reported. This
morning Spain did announce some further budget cuts and Portugal said
in was in the midst of planning more cuts. Greece&#8217;s GDP is still
falling but at least the pace of decline did not worsen this quarter.</p>
<p>Gold is making new highs on the expectation that the European
debt bomb will explode. But what we see instead is evidence that, at
least to start things out, the key problem-countries are taking some of
the needed steps toward austerity and success. Spain and Portugal seem
to be using the new EMU financial back-stop to good purpose by using
its protective influence as a chance to make some much-needed changes.
I think that this sort of effort flies in the face of the gold market
speculation. Greece remains a problem issue, since its people are not
really on board for what its politicians signed them up for. But that
could change when the Greek people realize that there is no &#8216;plan B&#8217;
for them. They are at the end of their rope with this bailout offer.
And, if they are the only problem country in EMU and the rest get their
act in order, I don&#8217;t see how an intransigent Greece, by itself, drives
gold prices higher &#8211; certainly not form here.</p>
<p>Today the Euro-Area also released March industrial output
figures. MFG IP grew at a 14.8% pace in Q1 in the Zone. In the quarter
output gains were led by France Italy and Germany, in that order,
followed by the UK at 4.9% and then Spain at -4.3%. Among these five
large EU countries only Spain showed a quarterly drop in IP, but all
had Yr/Yr increases from March of one year ago; the UK&#8217;s 3.3% Yr-o-Yr
gain from March of 2009 is the smallest gain of the lot on that basis.</p>
<p>That's quit a bit better than the GDP report seems. Of course,
part of the problem is that Europe&#8217;s growth is substantially export-led
and that MFG is pulling the whole economy ahead. The consumer sector
remains weak and the services sector ahs not gotten into gear.
Consumers remain the largest piece of the economy so the bulging IP
numbers make for great headlines but the &#8216;bulge&#8217; is all &#8216;steroids&#8217;
since it takes consumer participation and job growth to make great
economic growth (GDP). Europe is not there yet. We conclude these
points about sector participations from the other monthly data we have
in hand since Euro-GDP reports come in a &#8216;flash&#8217; format without any
detail. The detail will be filled in later. We are all interested in
that detail, about sectors and about member by member economic
performance. We have yet to see it.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8" scope="col"> <b>Euro-Area
And Main G-10 Country GDP Results</b>
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="3">Quarter over
quarter-Saar</td>
<td colspan="4">Year/Year</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">GDP</td>
<td>Q1-10</td>
<td>Q4-09</td>
<td>Q3-09</td>
<td>Q1-10</td>
<td>Q4-09</td>
<td>Q3-09</td>
<td>Q2-09</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">EMU-15</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-2.2%</td>
<td>-4.1%</td>
<td>-4.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>-3.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>-2.2%</td>
<td>-4.8%</td>
<td>-5.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Greece</td>
<td>-3.1%</td>
<td>-3.1%</td>
<td>-1.9%</td>
<td>-2.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-2.8%</td>
<td>-4.7%</td>
<td>-6.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">The Netherlands</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-5.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">UK</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>-3.1%</td>
<td>-5.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-5.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">US</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-3.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

It was hardly a spectacular number for Q1 GDP from EMU although the 0.2% Q/Q gain did beat the expected gain of just 0.1% Q/Q. GDP is rising Yr/Yr for the first time Since Q3 2008 and that is something. France, Italy, the Netherlands [...]

EMU GDP Is On The Mend

Tom Moeller

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100512d.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>After stabilizing a bit for a few months, the U.S. foreign
trade deficit broke from its range and deepened in March. The deficit
of $40.4B compared to a little-revised $39.4B during February. The
latest figure roughly matched Consensus expectations for a deficit of
$40.0B. Nevertheless, the latest deficit was the deepest since December
of 2008.</p>
<p>Both imports and exports were strong during March. The 3.1%
increase in total imports reflected a 10.0% increase (72.4% y/y) in
imports of petroleum products as crude oil prices rose m/m to $74.32
per barrel. The economic recovery in the U.S. also caused the quantity
of petroleum imports to jump 7.4% m/m, even though the level remains
down 2.5% y/y following declines during the prior several years.</p>
<p>Non-oil imports again reflected the economic recovery with a
2.6% gain which was the seventh solid increase in the last nine months.
These gains followed a 17.7% decline for all of last year. The increase
has been led by imports of automotive vehicles &amp; parts which
surged by nearly two-thirds y/y. Real nonauto consumer goods imports
rose another 1.1% m/m (9.1% y/y) and capital goods imports jumped 1.2%
m/m (16.7% y/y). Finally, services imports slipped 1.3% (+9.1% y/y).
U.S. travels abroad increased 1.1% (4.5% y/y) while passenger fares
surged 4.8% (5.6% y/y). "Other" transportation services imports jumped
for the seventh consecutive month, posting a 3.8% increase (18.1% y/y).</p>
<p>Nominal exports jumped 3.2% (20.4% y/y) due to a 3.4% surge
(16.9% y/y) in real merchandise exports. That was the strongest y/y
gain since 1997. Real exports of non-auto consumer goods led the
strength with a 5.7% jump (11.0% y/y). Real capital goods exports
followed with a 1.2% gain (10.8% y/y) and auto exports nudged up by
0.4% (53.5% y/y). Exports of services rose 0.9% (11.9% y/y) with a
12.8% y/y gain in travel.</p>
<p>By country, the trade deficit with mainland China held roughly
stable at $16.9B, roughly half its peak of $27.9B in October of 2008.
Trade with China surged as exports jumped by roughly 33% y/y and
imports rose by a lesser 14.7%. With Japan, the trade deficit deepened
to $5.2B as imports surged by roughly 50%, due to the U.S. economic
recovery, and exports rose 14.6% y/y. With the European Union, the
trade deficit increased to $7.1B as exports rose 6.0% y/y but imports
from Europe surged 15.8%.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100512e.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100512f.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EE/@EE01/@EE01.HTM">Foreign
Trade&nbsp;</a></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>March</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>February</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">U.S. Trade Deficit</td>
<td>$40.4B</td>
<td>$39.4B</td>
<td>$37.0B</td>
<td>$28.8B (3/09)</td>
<td>$378.6B</td>
<td>$695.9B</td>
<td>$701.4B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Exports - Goods
&amp; Services (m/m)</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>20.4%</td>
<td>-14.9%</td>
<td>11.2%</td>
<td>13.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Imports - Goods
&amp; Services</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>24.2</td>
<td>-23.4</td>
<td>7.6</td>
<td>6.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Petroleum</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>-3.6</td>
<td>72.4</td>
<td>-44.1</td>
<td>37.0</td>
<td>9.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonpetroleum Goods</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>20.4</td>
<td>-21.0</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>4.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

After stabilizing a bit for a few months, the U.S. foreign trade deficit broke from its range and deepened in March. The deficit of $40.4B compared to a little-revised $39.4B during February. The latest figure roughly matched [...]

U.S. Trade Deficit Deepens With Higher Oil Prices & Economic Recovery

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100512a.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that labor market
conditions remained in a state of flux during March. The latest Job
Openings &amp; Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) indicated that the <b>job
openings rate </b>held steady at 2.0% with a downwardly revised
February reading. <i>The job openings rate is the number of job
openings on the last business day of the month as a percent of total
employment plus job openings. </i>Job availability fell 1.8%
after the downwardly revised February decline. Nevertheless, the latest
availability level was improved by 0.9% year-to-year. Last year job
availability fell 17.8% following a 29.7% decline during 2008. The
series dates back to December 2000.</p>
<p>Improvement in the government sector's job openings rate
compensated for a modest deterioration in the private-sector during the
last two months and returned it to the highest level since early last
year. The private-sector job openings rate was steady following modest
improvement in January. That reflected fewer professional, education
&amp; health services jobs but the number of factory and retail
trade jobs grew strongly.</p>
<p>The <b>hires rate</b> moved up modestly to its
highest since late-2008. <i>The hires rate is the number of
hires during the month divided by employment.</i>The level of
hiring rose 10% from its low in June of last year. The gain was led by
a 48.5% rise in hiring in the construction sector and a 28.6% rise in
factory jobs.</p>
<p>The job separations rate remained at the series' low of 3.1%
with the actual number of separations off 14.7% year-to-year. <i>Separations
include quits, layoffs, discharges, and other separations as well as
retirements. </i>The <b>layoff &amp; discharge rate </b>alone
remained at the nineteen-month low of 1.4% as the actual number of
layoffs fell 25.7% y/y after the 12.6% increase during 2009.</p>
<p>The JOLTS survey dates only to December 2000 but has followed
the movement in nonfarm payrolls, though the actual correlation between
the two series is low. A description of the Jolts survey and the latest
release from the U.S. Department of Labor is available <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf">here</a>
and the figures are available in Haver's <b>USECON</b>
database.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100512b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100512c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EB/@EB14/@EB14.HTM">JOLTS (Job Openings &amp; Labor
&nbsp;Turnover Survey)</a></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>March</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>February</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>March '09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="8"><b>Job Openings, Total</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rate (%)</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>3.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Total (000s)</td>
<td>2,694</td>
<td>2,647</td>
<td>2,854</td>
<td>2,671</td>
<td>2,531</td>
<td>3,078</td>
<td>4,378</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="8"><b>Hires, Total</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rate (%)</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>37.3</td>
<td>41.1</td>
<td>45.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Total (000s)</td>
<td>4,242</td>
<td>4,011</td>
<td>4,087</td>
<td>4,095</td>
<td>48,649</td>
<td>56,082</td>
<td>63,234</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol"><b>Layoffs
&amp;
Discharges, Total</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rate (%)</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>20.7</td>
<td>17.7</td>
<td>16.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Total (000s)</td>
<td>1,830</td>
<td>1,823</td>
<td>1,953</td>
<td>2,462</td>
<td>27,683</td>
<td>24,589</td>
<td>22,606</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that labor market conditions remained in a state of flux during March. The latest Job Openings & Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) indicated that the job openings rate held steady at 2.0% with a [...]

JOLTS: U.S. Job Openings Steady But Hires & Fires Diverge

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100512a.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that labor market
conditions remained in a state of flux during March. The latest Job
Openings &amp; Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) indicated that the <b>job
openings rate </b>held steady at 2.0% with a downwardly revised
February reading. <i>The job openings rate is the number of job
openings on the last business day of the month as a percent of total
employment plus job openings. </i>Job availability fell 1.8%
after the downwardly revised February decline. Nevertheless, the latest
availability level was improved by 0.9% year-to-year. Last year job
availability fell 17.8% following a 29.7% decline during 2008. The
series dates back to December 2000.</p>
<p>Improvement in the government sector's job openings rate
compensated for a modest deterioration in the private-sector during the
last two months and returned it to the highest level since early last
year. The private-sector job openings rate was steady following modest
improvement in January. That reflected fewer professional, education
&amp; health services jobs but the number of factory and retail
trade jobs grew strongly.</p>
<p>The <b>hires rate</b> moved up modestly to its
highest since late-2008. <i>The hires rate is the number of
hires during the month divided by employment.</i>The level of
hiring rose 10% from its low in June of last year. The gain was led by
a 48.5% rise in hiring in the construction sector and a 28.6% rise in
factory jobs.</p>
<p>The job separations rate remained at the series' low of 3.1%
with the actual number of separations off 14.7% year-to-year. <i>Separations
include quits, layoffs, discharges, and other separations as well as
retirements. </i>The <b>layoff &amp; discharge rate </b>alone
remained at the nineteen-month low of 1.4% as the actual number of
layoffs fell 25.7% y/y after the 12.6% increase during 2009.</p>
<p>The JOLTS survey dates only to December 2000 but has followed
the movement in nonfarm payrolls, though the actual correlation between
the two series is low. A description of the Jolts survey and the latest
release from the U.S. Department of Labor is available <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf">here</a>
and the figures are available in Haver's <b>USECON</b>
database.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100512b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100512c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EB/@EB14/@EB14.HTM">JOLTS
(Job Openings &amp; Labor
&nbsp;Turnover Survey)</a></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>March</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>February</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>March '09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="8"><b>Job Openings, Total</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rate (%)</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>3.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Total (000s)</td>
<td>2,694</td>
<td>2,647</td>
<td>2,854</td>
<td>2,671</td>
<td>2,531</td>
<td>3,078</td>
<td>4,378</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="8"><b>Hires, Total</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rate (%)</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>37.3</td>
<td>41.1</td>
<td>45.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Total (000s)</td>
<td>4,242</td>
<td>4,011</td>
<td>4,087</td>
<td>4,095</td>
<td>48,649</td>
<td>56,082</td>
<td>63,234</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol"><b>Layoffs
&amp;
Discharges, Total</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Rate (%)</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>20.7</td>
<td>17.7</td>
<td>16.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Total (000s)</td>
<td>1,830</td>
<td>1,823</td>
<td>1,953</td>
<td>2,462</td>
<td>27,683</td>
<td>24,589</td>
<td>22,606</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<span id="articletitle">U.S. Trade Deficit Deepens With
Higher Oil Prices &amp; Economic Recovery</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> May 12, 2010</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100512d.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>After stabilizing a bit for a few months, the U.S. foreign
trade deficit broke from its range and deepened in March. The deficit
of $40.4B compared to a little-revised $39.4B during February. The
latest figure roughly matched Consensus expectations for a deficit of
$40.0B. Nevertheless, the latest deficit was the deepest since December
of 2008.</p>
<p>Both imports and exports were strong during March. The 3.1%
increase in total imports reflected a 10.0% increase (72.4% y/y) in
imports of petroleum products as crude oil prices rose m/m to $74.32
per barrel. The economic recovery in the U.S. also caused the quantity
of petroleum imports to jump 7.4% m/m, even though the level remains
down 2.5% y/y following declines during the prior several years.</p>
<p>Non-oil imports again reflected the economic recovery with a
2.6% gain which was the seventh solid increase in the last nine months.
These gains followed a 17.7% decline for all of last year. The increase
has been led by imports of automotive vehicles &amp; parts which
surged by nearly two-thirds y/y. Real nonauto consumer goods imports
rose another 1.1% m/m (9.1% y/y) and capital goods imports jumped 1.2%
m/m (16.7% y/y). Finally, services imports slipped 1.3% (+9.1% y/y).
U.S. travels abroad increased 1.1% (4.5% y/y) while passenger fares
surged 4.8% (5.6% y/y). "Other" transportation services imports jumped
for the seventh consecutive month, posting a 3.8% increase (18.1% y/y).</p>
<p>Nominal exports jumped 3.2% (20.4% y/y) due to a 3.4% surge
(16.9% y/y) in real merchandise exports. That was the strongest y/y
gain since 1997. Real exports of non-auto consumer goods led the
strength with a 5.7% jump (11.0% y/y). Real capital goods exports
followed with a 1.2% gain (10.8% y/y) and auto exports nudged up by
0.4% (53.5% y/y). Exports of services rose 0.9% (11.9% y/y) with a
12.8% y/y gain in travel.</p>
<p>By country, the trade deficit with mainland China held roughly
stable at $16.9B, roughly half its peak of $27.9B in October of 2008.
Trade with China surged as exports jumped by roughly 33% y/y and
imports rose by a lesser 14.7%. With Japan, the trade deficit deepened
to $5.2B as imports surged by roughly 50%, due to the U.S. economic
recovery, and exports rose 14.6% y/y. With the European Union, the
trade deficit increased to $7.1B as exports rose 6.0% y/y but imports
from Europe surged 15.8%.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100512e.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100512f.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EE/@EE01/@EE01.HTM">Foreign
Trade&nbsp;</a></b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>March</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>February</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">U.S. Trade Deficit</td>
<td>$40.4B</td>
<td>$39.4B</td>
<td>$37.0B</td>
<td>$28.8B (3/09)</td>
<td>$378.6B</td>
<td>$695.9B</td>
<td>$701.4B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Exports - Goods
&amp; Services (m/m)</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>20.4%</td>
<td>-14.9%</td>
<td>11.2%</td>
<td>13.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Imports - Goods
&amp; Services</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>24.2</td>
<td>-23.4</td>
<td>7.6</td>
<td>6.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Petroleum</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>-3.6</td>
<td>72.4</td>
<td>-44.1</td>
<td>37.0</td>
<td>9.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Nonpetroleum Goods</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>20.4</td>
<td>-21.0</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>4.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<span id="articletitle">EMU GDP Is On The Mend</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> May 12, 2010</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100512g.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>It was hardly a spectacular number for Q1 GDP from EMU
although the 0.2% Q/Q gain did beat the expected gain of just 0.1% Q/Q.
GDP is rising Yr/Yr for the first time Since Q3 2008 and that is
something. France, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany have positive
Yr/Yr gains for GDP among the early GDP reporters. The UK and Greece
are still showing Yr/Yr GDP declines. Germany and France show the
strongest EU/EMU Yr/Yr gains among those that have reported at 1.5% and
1.2%, respectively. Both are short of the US mark of 2.5%. The US
recovery seems to have gathered pace while in Europe growth rates are
still struggling to cobble together positive numbers.</p>
<p>Obviously in the current situation we are eager to see results
from Spain, Portugal and Ireland, but they have not yet reported. This
morning Spain did announce some further budget cuts and Portugal said
in was in the midst of planning more cuts. Greece&#8217;s GDP is still
falling but at least the pace of decline did not worsen this quarter.</p>
<p>Gold is making new highs on the expectation that the European
debt bomb will explode. But what we see instead is evidence that, at
least to start things out, the key problem-countries are taking some of
the needed steps toward austerity and success. Spain and Portugal seem
to be using the new EMU financial back-stop to good purpose by using
its protective influence as a chance to make some much-needed changes.
I think that this sort of effort flies in the face of the gold market
speculation. Greece remains a problem issue, since its people are not
really on board for what its politicians signed them up for. But that
could change when the Greek people realize that there is no &#8216;plan B&#8217;
for them. They are at the end of their rope with this bailout offer.
And, if they are the only problem country in EMU and the rest get their
act in order, I don&#8217;t see how an intransigent Greece, by itself, drives
gold prices higher &#8211; certainly not form here.</p>
<p>Today the Euro-Area also released March industrial output
figures. MFG IP grew at a 14.8% pace in Q1 in the Zone. In the quarter
output gains were led by France Italy and Germany, in that order,
followed by the UK at 4.9% and then Spain at -4.3%. Among these five
large EU countries only Spain showed a quarterly drop in IP, but all
had Yr/Yr increases from March of one year ago; the UK&#8217;s 3.3% Yr-o-Yr
gain from March of 2009 is the smallest gain of the lot on that basis.</p>
<p>That's quit a bit better than the GDP report seems. Of course,
part of the problem is that Europe&#8217;s growth is substantially export-led
and that MFG is pulling the whole economy ahead. The consumer sector
remains weak and the services sector ahs not gotten into gear.
Consumers remain the largest piece of the economy so the bulging IP
numbers make for great headlines but the &#8216;bulge&#8217; is all &#8216;steroids&#8217;
since it takes consumer participation and job growth to make great
economic growth (GDP). Europe is not there yet. We conclude these
points about sector participations from the other monthly data we have
in hand since Euro-GDP reports come in a &#8216;flash&#8217; format without any
detail. The detail will be filled in later. We are all interested in
that detail, about sectors and about member by member economic
performance. We have yet to see it.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8" scope="col"> <b>Euro-Area
And Main G-10 Country GDP Results</b>
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="3">Quarter over
quarter-Saar</td>
<td colspan="4">Year/Year</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">GDP</td>
<td>Q1-10</td>
<td>Q4-09</td>
<td>Q3-09</td>
<td>Q1-10</td>
<td>Q4-09</td>
<td>Q3-09</td>
<td>Q2-09</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">EMU-15</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-2.2%</td>
<td>-4.1%</td>
<td>-4.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>-3.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>-2.2%</td>
<td>-4.8%</td>
<td>-5.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Greece</td>
<td>-3.1%</td>
<td>-3.1%</td>
<td>-1.9%</td>
<td>-2.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-2.8%</td>
<td>-4.7%</td>
<td>-6.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">The Netherlands</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-5.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">UK</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>-3.1%</td>
<td>-5.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-5.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">US</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-3.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Louise Curley

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100511i.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100511j.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"></p>
<p>A number of economic variables in the Chinese economy have
been updated for April over the past few days. Although still
relatively low, 2.8% in April, the inflation rate based on the Consumer
Price Index has been rising steadily. In September of last year the
Consumer Price index was declining at rate of almost 1% from the
previous year. Inflation at the Producer level is considerably higher.
In April, the year to year percent change in the Producer Price Index
was 6.8%, up from 5.9% in March and from -6.99% in September of last
year. The year to year changes in the CPI and PPI are shown in the
first chart.
</p>
<p>Although the year to year increase in retail trade in April of
18.5%, up from 18.0% in March, did not top February's 22.1% increase,
the rate of growth in retail sales continues at relatively high levels
historically as can be seen in the second chart. This chart also
includes the year to year percent changes in Industrial Production.
After an almost uninterrupted increase in the growth of production from
January 2009 when the year to year increase was 3.8% to January 2010
when the year to year increase was 20.7% growth appears to be
decelerating. In April it was 17.8%. While the year to year percent
increases in industrial production have only recently begun to
decelerate, the year to year increase in fixed investments has been on
a downtrend since mid 2009 as shown in the third chart.
</p>
<p>The final piece of information on China's economy recently
released concerns the balance of trade in goods. In March, China
recorded the first deficit in its balance of trade in goods since
February, 2004. Even then a trade deficit for China was unusual. One
has to go back to the early nineties to find more than an occasional
deficit in China's trade in goods. The deficit was the result of a drop
in exports and a surge in imports principally of raw materials. Exports
recovered in April and imports declined with the result that a surplus
on trade of $9.6 billion US was recorded as can be seen in the fourth
chart. </p>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100507k.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100511l.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b>CHINA</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Apr 10&nbsp;</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Mar 10&nbsp;</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Feb 10&nbsp;</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Jan 10</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Dec 09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Nov 09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Oct 09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Sep 09</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Producer Price
Index (Y/Y % chg)</td>
<td>6.80</td>
<td>5.90</td>
<td>5.40</td>
<td>4.30</td>
<td>1.70</td>
<td>-2.08</td>
<td>-5.80</td>
<td>-6.99</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Price
Index (Y/Y % chg)</td>
<td>2.8</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>-0.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Retail Trade (Y/Y
% chg)</td>
<td>18.5</td>
<td>18.0</td>
<td>22.1</td>
<td>14.0</td>
<td>12.5</td>
<td>15.8</td>
<td>16.2</td>
<td>15.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Industrial
Production (Y/Y % chg)</td>
<td>17.80</td>
<td>18.10</td>
<td>20.69</td>
<td>20.69</td>
<td>18.50</td>
<td>19.20</td>
<td>16.10</td>
<td>13.90</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Investment in
Fixed Assets (Y/Y % chg)</td>
<td>26.1</td>
<td>26.4</td>
<td>26.6</td>
<td>28.6</td>
<td>30.5</td>
<td>32.1</td>
<td>33.1</td>
<td>33.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Balance of Trade
in Goods (Bil US$)</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>-3.1</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>12.0</td>
<td>10.7</td>
<td>12.5</td>
<td>14.7</td>
<td>13.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Exports of Goods
(Bil US$)</td>
<td>123.9</td>
<td>118.7</td>
<td>129.6</td>
<td>114.2</td>
<td>123.3</td>
<td>107.9</td>
<td>106.2</td>
<td>103.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Imports of Goods
(Bil US$)</td>
<td>114.3</td>
<td>121.8</td>
<td>120.0</td>
<td>102.2</td>
<td>112.6</td>
<td>95.4</td>
<td>91.5</td>
<td>90.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

A number of economic variables in the Chinese economy have been updated for April over the past few days. Although still relatively low, 2.8% in April, the inflation rate based on the Consumer Price Index has been rising steadily. In [...]

A Potpourri Of April Data For China

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100510g.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>After a jackrabbit jump the OECD trend restored Leading
Economic indicators are slowing their pace. Still, viewed over six
months which is the OECD&#8217;s preferred way of using them, the grow rates
across the OECD region remain quite strong, Japan is even accelerating
to the second best growth rate in the table. Still, all rates decay
over three-months compared to six months.</p>
<p>The challenge to growth, however, is for the period ahead.
Evidence is that China is slowing. The Greek crisis and its knock-on
effects damaged Europe and have more permanently helped to re-shape
Europe&#8217;s political power structure.</p>
<p>Now a new support package is in place for Greece and a one
trillion dollar backstop for Europe&#8217;s laggards has been set up. The ECB
is supporting this with bond purchases and the Fed has reactivated its
swap lines to help. How much will these new actions compensate for the
damage that came before them? How weak will China actually be? And how
much if at all will the US economy and its financial markets be damaged
by its one-off (?) intra-day thousand point drop in the DJIA from last
week? Investing dollars, yen and euros want to know.</p>
<p>As of March things look good across the OECD area. The most
up-to-date economic data from the US have been very upbeat. Europe&#8217;s
most recent readings have been good as well, but the new investor
confidence reading from Sentix turned sharply and decisively into
negative territory.</p>
<p>Nonetheless it&#8217;s a good thing to have the economies hit by
these adverse forces while they are gaining momentum. All the trends
will bear watching. Upward momentum bolstered with these new pushes by
policymakers yet may carry the day.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="5" scope="col"><b>OECD
Trend-restored leading Indicators</b> </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;" class="even">
<td colspan="5" class="firstcol">Growth progression-SAAR</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>3Mos</td>
<td>6Mos</td>
<td>12mos</td>
<td>Yr-Ago</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">OECD</td>
<td style="color: red;">5.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">7.3%</td>
<td>10.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-11.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">OECD7</td>
<td style="color: red;">6.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">7.8%</td>
<td>10.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-12.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">OECD.Ezone</td>
<td style="color: red;">2.9%</td>
<td style="color: red;">5.1%</td>
<td>9.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-11.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">OECD.Japan</td>
<td style="color: red;">8.0%</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-14.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">OECD US</td>
<td style="color: red;">8.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">9.7%</td>
<td>11.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-12.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;">
<td colspan="5" class="firstcol">Six month
readings at
6-Mo Intervals:</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Recent six</td>
<td>6Mo Ago</td>
<td>12Mo Ago</td>
<td>18MO Ago</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">OECD</td>
<td style="color: red;">7.3%</td>
<td>13.1%</td>
<td>-10.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-11.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">OECD7</td>
<td style="color: red;">7.8%</td>
<td>13.3%</td>
<td><span style="color: red;">-13.1%</span></td>
<td style="color: red;">-11.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">OECD.Eur</td>
<td style="color: red;">5.1%</td>
<td>13.8%</td>
<td>-9.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-13.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">OECD.Japan</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
<td>8.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-18.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-10.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">OECD US</td>
<td style="color: red;">9.7%</td>
<td>13.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-14.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-11.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="5" class="firstcol"><span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">Slowdowns</span>
indicated by BOLD RED</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

After a jackrabbit jump the OECD trend restored Leading Economic indicators are slowing their pace. Still, viewed over six months which is the OECD’s preferred way of using them, the grow rates across the OECD region remain quite [...]

OECD LEIs Continue To Advance

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100510c.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100510d.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<p>The newspaper, word-of-mouth, and personal contacts each are
tools for job-searching. In this the internet age, however, postings of
available jobs can also be found online. <b>Monster.com</b>,
provided by Monster Worldwide Inc., is a web-site which keeps track of
many job listings. The monthly figures are available by Census region,
industry, and by occupation. Haver Analytics carries Monster's data
back to 2003 in its <b>SURVEYS </b>database.</p>
<p>Since its inception, the three-month change in the Monster
index has a 68% correlation with growth in nonfarm payrolls.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that 2003-04 = 100 is the base for the Monster
Index. From the end of the last recession until this past January, it
has stayed in a range from 114 to 121. Most recently, however, it's
broken from that range -- to the upside. The April figure of 133 was
the strongest in the last three months of improved readings. Moreover,
the figure was up 16.7% from its trough. For the most part,
double-digit gains have been logged across most of the U.S. Only two
regions are substantially lagging with single-digit readings in the
Mountain and in the East-South-Central areas.</p>
<p>By industry, recent improvement also has been broad-based with
strong double-digit growth in the construction, manufacturing and
retail trade sectors. Job openings in the white-collar finance
&amp; insurance, management and professional, scientific/tech
services industries also have grown at double-digit rates. Jobs
availability in health-care and education have grown at slower rates.</p>
<p>Looking once again at the overall level since 2003 shows
variation in industry postings. A level of 133 in the total indicates
that since inception, there has been a one-third rise in on-line
advertising for overall employment. That reflects a range of
near-doubling of listings for construction and government jobs to a
halving of listings for positions in finance &amp; insurance.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100510e.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100510f.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col"><b>April</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>March</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>February</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>April '09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"><b>Monster Employment
Index&nbsp;</b></td>
<td>133</td>
<td>125</td>
<td>124</td>
<td>120</td>
<td>118</td>
<td>158</td>
<td>182</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;
Construction</td>
<td>195</td>
<td>176</td>
<td>165</td>
<td>170</td>
<td>167</td>
<td>202</td>
<td>225</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;
Manufacturing</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>111</td>
<td>129</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Retail
Trade</td>
<td>137</td>
<td>124</td>
<td>116</td>
<td>118</td>
<td>124</td>
<td>158</td>
<td>184</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Finance
&amp; Insurance</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>105</td>
<td>143</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Real
Estate &amp; Rental Leasing</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>92</td>
<td>135</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Company
&amp; Enterprise Mgmt.&nbsp;</td>
<td>117</td>
<td>111</td>
<td>111</td>
<td>107</td>
<td>107</td>
<td>144</td>
<td>157&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;
Education&nbsp;</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>106</td>
<td>126</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Heath
Care/Social Assistance</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>92</td>
<td>114</td>
<td>121</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Public
Administration</td>
<td>183</td>
<td>182</td>
<td>190</td>
<td>197</td>
<td>188</td>
<td>199</td>
<td>161</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The newspaper, word-of-mouth, and personal contacts each are tools for job-searching. In this the internet age, however, postings of available jobs can also be found online. Monster.com, provided by Monster Worldwide Inc., is a web- [...]

Monster Website Helps Find Jobs, And It's Indicating Greater Availability

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<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>
<br>

<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100510a.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">Consumers
have backed away from reducing debt as rapidly as during last year. The
Federal Reserve reported late-Friday that consumer credit outstanding
rose $2.0B during March following a revised $6.0B February drop. That
decline was half the amount reported last month, suggesting that
consumers are more confident about spending. Despite this seeming
stabilization in credit outstanding, the 3.4% y/y decline ending in
March remained a near record.&nbsp;</p><p>Cutting the usage of revolving
credit remained in the forefront of consumers' pullback. A $3.2B March
decline followed a $6.0B drop and left usage down a near-record 8.8%
y/y. Pools of securitized assets led with a sharp m/m (-84.7% y/y drop.
Finance companies, however, countered and increased lending 29.3% y/y
due to a one month March spike. Commercial bank lending also jumped in
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100510b.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 265px;" align="right">March
and was up by three- quarters from last year.&nbsp; Loans
from credit unions rose 6.2% y/y while lending by savings institution
increased 4.7%.</p><p>Usage of non-revolving credit (autos &amp; other
consumer durables), which accounts for nearly two-thirds of the total,
actually rose $5.2B after the $0.2B February slip. Non-revolving credit
had fallen modestly during the recession, but has been relatively
stable for a year.&nbsp; Year-to-year figures ending in March show
that Federal government &amp; Sallie Mae lending expanded by nearly
three-quarters while commercial bank lending also rose 6.6%. These
gains were offset a nearly one-half decline in pools of securitized
assets, a 12.9% fall in savings institutions, a 4.3% decline in finance
companies and a 3.1% fall in credit union lending. <br>
</p><p>During
the last ten years, there has been a 60% correlation between the y/y
change in credit outstanding and the change in personal consumption
expenditures.&nbsp; Moreover, these figures are the major input to
the Fed's quarterly Flow of Funds accounts for the household sector.<br>
</p><p>Credit data are available in Haver's <b>USECON</b>
database. The Flow of Funds data are in Haver's <b>FFUNDS</b>
database.&nbsp;
</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><b>Consumer
Credit Outstanding (m/m Chg, SAAR)</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>March</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>February</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>January</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2009</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2008</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>2007</b></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>$2.0B</td>
<td>$-6.2B</td>
<td>$6.5B</td>
<td>-3.4%</td>
<td>-4.4%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Revolving</td>
<td>$-3.2B</td>
<td>$-6.0B</td>
<td>$-4.3B</td>
<td>-8.8%</td>
<td>-9.6%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>8.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non-revolving</td>
<td>$5.2B</td>
<td>$-0.2B</td>
<td>$10.8B</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</span>
</body></html>

Consumers have backed away from reducing debt as rapidly as during last year. The Federal Reserve reported late-Friday that consumer credit outstanding rose $2.0B during March following a revised $6.0B February drop. That decline was [...]

U.S. Consumer Credit Retrenchment Eases

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

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

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

Cost of transporting crude oil has soared to series high

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

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

Is recent drop in sentiment signaling softer growth ahead?

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

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

AI-related outperformance of IP in Advanced Asia ex Japan

Resilient US economy pushing up Blue Chip 2026 outlook

US and China big leaders in adoption of AI models

Robust US demand for advanced technology products

China's export growth rotating away from the US

More pronounced upward revisions in countries more exposed to AI investment

Stable job openings and hiring rates point to cautious hiring

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

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

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

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

PMIs show still-elevated but slowing US inflation

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

Service Health

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

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Featured Data Additions

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Andrew Cates

**Energy shock lifts inflation, trims growth**
The IMF’s latest WEO revisions for 2026 broadly reflect the classic stagflationary impact of the recent Middle East energy shock, with growth downgraded and inflation revised higher across most major economies. Higher energy prices act as a tax on real incomes while simultaneously pushing up costs. That said, the picture is not uniform: a number of economies—notably the US, China and India—have seen growth upgrades, reflecting stronger-than-expected momentum so far in 2026. By contrast, the UK stands out at the stagflationary extreme, combining one of the largest growth downgrades with a relatively strong inflation uplift—consistent with its weaker underlying momentum, greater energy sensitivity and more persistent domestic inflation dynamics. More broadly, while the global revisions remain modest—pointing to resilience in activity—the message is that disinflation is no longer a smooth glide back to target but increasingly contingent on energy prices and geopolitical developments.

260423Z1.jpg

**Markets largely shrug off rising economic pessimism**
Notwithstanding a more downbeat assessment from economists—including the IMF’s stagflationary tilt to the outlook—there has been remarkably little follow-through into financial markets. Measures of systemic stress in both the US and UK remain low by historical standards, suggesting that investors are, for now, largely looking through the Middle East conflict. There are several possible explanations: corporate profits remain resilient, the AI-driven investment narrative continues to dominate market thinking, and markets may be assuming that any energy shock will be temporary and contained. In effect, investors appear to be pricing a benign baseline in which geopolitical risks do not materially disrupt growth, inflation expectations or policy. The UK is a partial exception, with a somewhat more visible uptick in stress, which aligns more closely with the IMF’s more challenging growth-inflation trade-off and the economy’s greater sensitivity to energy prices.

260423Z2.jpg

**Volatility falls despite deteriorating growth surprises**
Market optimism is also increasingly at odds with the incoming data flow. Typically, equity volatility declines when growth surprises are positive and inflation surprises are benign. However, the recent pattern has broken that relationship. Growth surprises across the G10 have turned increasingly negative (our series is inverted in the chart below), yet volatility has continued to fall. In other words, markets are becoming less sensitive to weakening macro data, continuing to price a benign outlook even as the data deteriorate. This divergence reinforces the broader theme: investors are, for now, looking through both geopolitical risks and softer economic momentum, placing greater weight on resilience in earnings, the AI-driven narrative and the assumption that policy will remain supportive.

260423Z3.jpg

**Inflation Nowcasts Have Jumped**
Incoming data suggest that headline inflation has moved higher in recent weeks, broadly in line with expectations given the rise in energy prices following the Middle East shock. Nowcasts for CPI across the major economies show a clear rebound in March and April from the lows seen at the start of 2026, with the move occurring in a relatively synchronised fashion. This reinforces the view that the recent pickup in inflation is being driven primarily by a common external factor—energy.

260423Z4.jpg

**Energy shock not yet feeding into underlying inflation**
However, the detailed breakdown of March inflation outcomes suggests that this remains, for now, a largely headline-driven phenomenon. While headline CPI prints were firm across most economies, core inflation—stripping out energy and food—was more subdued and in some cases weaker. This indicates that there has been very limited pass-through from higher energy prices into broader goods and services inflation at this early stage. In other words, the shock is still being absorbed rather than propagated. That distinction is critical for policy and markets alike: as long as second-round effects remain contained, central banks may be able to look through the near-term rise in inflation, even as headline rates move higher.

260423Z5.jpg

**Inflation Expectations Rising as Growth Sentiment Falters**
It remains early days, and much will hinge on how inflation expectations evolve from here. The latest ZEW survey for Germany already conveys the hallmarks of a classic stagflationary shock, with macroeconomic expectations weakening even as inflation expectations have ratcheted sharply higher. This shift is important: while the recent rise in headline inflation has so far shown limited pass-through into core, a sustained increase in expectations would raise the risk of second-round effects and make the inflation process more persistent. In that sense, the ZEW data highlight the key fault line in the current environment—whether the energy-driven shock remains contained, or begins to embed itself more broadly through expectations and pricing behaviour.

260423Z6.jpg

Financial markets have remained notably calm in recent weeks despite rising geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, a more downbeat macroeconomic narrative and elevated uncertainty. Measures of financial stress and volatility remain low, and equity markets continue to look through both the conflict and softer data. That resilience sits alongside a more nuanced macro backdrop. The IMF’s latest WEO revisions point to a classic stagflationary energy shock—growth downgraded and inflation revised higher—although the global impact remains modest and uneven, with some economies still benefiting from stronger momentum (chart 1). At the same time, market pricing appears increasingly detached from the data flow, with volatility declining even as growth surprises have turned more negative relative to inflation (charts 2 and 3). Incoming inflation data reinforce the idea of a largely headline-driven shock, with nowcasts rising in line with higher energy prices but only limited pass-through into core inflation so far (charts 4 and 5). However, it remains early days. Survey evidence, such as the latest ZEW release, suggests that inflation expectations may already be responding in a more concerning way, with a marked rise alongside weakening growth sentiment (chart 6). Taken together, the key question for markets is whether this remains a contained, energy-driven shock that can be looked through—or whether it begins to embed more persistently via expectations, forcing a reassessment of the currently benign outlook.

<iframe data-testid="embed-iframe" style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/44A12ktUaoJGHZG7pEVcul?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: Risks Build, Markets Shrug

260424E.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

260424.jpg

Germany

German Ifo Plunges Everywhere

Sandy Batten

260423F8.jpg

260423G8.jpg

The National Activity Index published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (CFNAI) slipped to -0.20 in March from an upwardly revised +0.03 in February (previously (-0.11). This is the lowest monthly reading since last November. Smoothing out the monthly volatility, the index's three-month moving average (CFNAI-MA3) declined to -0.03 in March from an upwardly revised +0.03 in February (previously -0.01).

This index is expressed in standard deviation units from zero (with a value of zero defined as trend real GDP growth). Research at the FRB Chicago indicates that readings on the 3-month average of -0.70 or below are consistent with the economy being in a recession. Therefore, even though the March reading on the 3-month average was negative, it indicates that the US economy is still growing, just slightly slower than trend, and is well away from recessionary conditions. The 3-month average would be much deeper in negative territory if the economy was at risk of contracting.

The National Activity Index is a composite of 85 economic indicators, grouped into four major categories: production and income; employment, unemployment, and hours worked; personal consumption and housing; sales, orders, and inventories. Three of the four broad categories of indicators used to construct the index decreased from February, and three categories made negative contributions in March. Production-related indicators contributed –0.20 to the CFNAI in March, down from +0.13 in February. The sales, orders, and inventories category's contribution to the CFNAI was –0.01 in March, down from +0.05 in February. Employment-related indicators contributed +0.02 to the CFNAI in March, up from –0.15 in February. The personal consumption and housing category's contribution to the CFNAI was –0.01 in March, down from a neutral value in February.

The CFNAI Diffusion Index, which measures the breadth of the change in the component series and is also a three-month moving average, increased to –0.04 in March from –0.08 in February. This is the highest reading since February 2025. A reading of zero indicates that all of the indicators are growing at their long-term average. If all of the underlying indicators in a given month are below their long-run averages, the diffusion index will equal -1. If all of the indicators are above their long-run averages, it will equal +1. Thirty-four of the 85 individual indicators made positive contributions to the CFNAI in March, while 51 made negative contributions. Forty-three indicators improved from February to March, while 40 indicators deteriorated and two were unchanged. Of the indicators that improved, 16 made negative contributions.

These figures are available in Haver's **SURVEYS** database.

- The monthly reading fell to -0.20 in March from an upwardly revised +0.03 in February.
- The three-month average slipped from +0.03 to -0.03.
- Despite the slip in March, the index points to near-trend economic growth and is well above recession territory.

Chicago Fed National Activity Index Slipped in March

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

260423A1.jpg

260423B1.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose by 6,000 to 214,000 in the week ending April 18, from 208,000 in the week ending April 11, revised from 207,000. The four-week average rose 750 to 210,750 in the week ending April 18, from 210,000 the April 11 week, revised from 209,750. The Action Economics/Haver Analytics Survey looked for 210,000 claims to have been filed.

The total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries—also known as “continuing claims”—rose by 12,000 to 1.821 million in the week ending April 11, from 1.809 million in the week ending April 4. The four-week moving average rose to 1.812 million in the latest week from 1.811 million in the March 28 week. The insured unemployment rate remained at 1.2% in the week of April 11. It has remained at that level since the week of November 29, 2025.

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ending April 4, the highest unemployment rates were in New Jersey (2.51%), Massachusetts (2.37%), Rhode Island (2.31%), Washington (2.25%), Minnesota (2.11%), and California (2.02%). The lowest rates were in Florida (0.30%), Louisiana (0.31%), Arkansas (0.35%), Alabama (0.36%), North Carolina (0.39%), Tennessee (0.46%), South Dakota (0.47%), Kansas and Virginia (both 0.49%). Rates in other notable states include New York (1.92%), Illinois (1.82%), Pennsylvania (1.52%), and Texas (1.04%). 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 **USECON**. Data for individual states are in **REGIONW** back to December 1986.

260423C1.jpg

260423D1.jpg

- New claims rose by 6,000 to 214,000.
- Continuing claims rose by 12,000 to 1.821 million.
- The insured unemployment rate remained at 1.2%.


U.S. Initial Unemployment Claims Rose in the Week of April 18

260423E.jpg

**Manufacturing looks strong while service sectors weaken**
S&P's April flash PMI readings show some very mixed results. For the United States, India, Australia, and the United Kingdom, there is a strengthening in the readings month-to-month for services, manufacturing, and the composite.

For Japan, France, and the European Monetary Union as a whole, there is improvement in the manufacturing sector on the month but a weaker services reading and a weaker composite overall.

Germany is the only responding area in the table showing weakness all around—in all three sectors—a weaker composite, a weaker manufacturing sector, and a weaker services sector in April. For Germany, this follows a weaker composite and service sector in March as well.

Most reporters—France, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, and India—had weaker readings for all three metrics in March: the composite, services, and manufacturing. The March exceptions were the United States, Germany, and the European Monetary Union; in each case, the exception was that the manufacturing sector improved month-to-month, while the composite and services both weakened.

This has been a period of weakening—in March and April—since the war in Iran began. The 48 separate sector readings produced 30 readings that were weaker month-to-month in March and April. Among the 16 composite readings, 12 reported weaker conditions month-to-month. In March, the immediate aftermath of the outbreak of war brought instantaneous step backs across the PMI readings, while April, responding to at least a military success in the area, has shown a significant bounce back that is now more common than further weakness.

The sequential data over three months, six months, and 12 months are based only on completed data; therefore, they're up to date through March. On that basis, we have triple sector weakness in the U.S., India, and Australia, with only Japan and the United Kingdom showing triple-sector improvement over three months. However, if we look at six months compared to 12 months, we have triple sector strength in the Monetary Union, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Australia. India and the U.S. each show only one stronger sector over that comparison—services in India’s case and manufacturing in the U.S. case.

**Ranking Peculiarity**
The ranking data take the current flash data and compare them to the history of observations back to January 2022. What is quite surprising is that, on that timeline, the manufacturing sectors of all the countries in the table—except for Australia and India—show manufacturing standings in their respective 80th to 90th percentiles. Meanwhile, services standings are typically in the 30th percentile or lower.

**Odd Impact of War**
If the war in Iran has an impact on something, we would expect that to fall on the goods trade sector. We would expect this to have an impact on manufacturing although it's the opposite thing that's happening. Manufacturing is showing a revival, while services sectors are showing weaker performance across these countries generally. India is an interesting case, with manufacturing only in its 32nd percentile; however, India’s raw diffusion reading for manufacturing is the strongest raw diffusion reading in the table. What India's ranking is telling us is that India had been extremely strong over the period since 2022, and now compared to that past standard, it's relatively weaker. However, it's still strong in absolute terms, showing a great deal of strength based on its pure diffusion value, just not in comparison to historic performance.

260423.jpg

**Next?**
At this point, it's not clear to me at least what these PMI data are telling us since the strength in manufacturing is a curiosity as is the weakness in the services sector. You see these two phenomena displayed in the chart above, in the case of the European Monetary Union’s flash readings as well.

**War breeds negative effects**
It's not a surprise that war would take some toll on consumer confidence or that it would be reflected in the services sector. However, seeing the kind of weakness being portrayed now in services against the strength in manufacturing is simply a bit hard to rationalize and understand. So, I think we're going to have to keep an eye on these readings as well as other readings in the months ahead to try to discern how global events, the war, conditions in the Strait of Hormuz, inflation currency shifts, and central bank policy are playing out across these various countries. None of what is happening is obvious to me. Japan clearly continues to benefit from a weak yen as its manufacturing sector is flying high, at its best reading since January 2022.

Economy in Brief: 2010

Jump to:

EMU GDP Is On The Mend

U.S. Trade Deficit Deepens With Higher Oil Prices & Economic Recovery

JOLTS: U.S. Job Openings Steady But Hires & Fires Diverge

JOLTS: U.S. Job Openings Steady But Hires & Fires Diverge

A Potpourri Of April Data For China

OECD LEIs Continue To Advance

Monster Website Helps Find Jobs, And It's Indicating Greater Availability

U.S. Consumer Credit Retrenchment Eases