Tom Moeller

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 

 <a href="/comment/120416i_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120416i.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/120416j_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120416j.png"></a> 
 
 The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo reported weaker
 housing activity. The Composite Housing Market Index for April fell to 25
 which was its lowest since January. Earlier figures were unrevised The
 index of single-family home sales fell to 26, down for the second
 consecutive month. Moreover, the figure still was lower than levels near
 70 in 2004. The index of sales during the next six months reversed earlier
 gains with a decline to 32. Finally, the home builders' index of traffic
 of prospective fell to 18. its lowest since November. By region, the
 Northeast and the West remained strong but the Midwest &amp; South both
 fell. The NAHB figures are seasonally adjusted.
 The Home Builders' Housing Opportunity Index, which is the share of
 homes sold that could be considered affordable to a family earning the
 median income, improved slightly in Q4 to 75.9% and reached the record
 high, buoyed by lower home prices, lower interest rates and higher income.
 (There is a break in the series from 2002 to 2003.)
 The Home Builders index is compiled from survey questions asking
 builders to rate market conditions as "good," "fair,"
 "poor" or "very high" to "very low." The
 figure is thus a diffusion index with numerical results over 50 indicating
 a predominance of "good" readings.
 The NAHB has compiled the Housing Market Index since 1985. The
 weights assigned to the individual index components are .5920 for single
 family detached sales, present-time, .1358 for single family detached
 sales, next six months; and .2722 for traffic of prospective buyers. The
 results, along with other housing and remodeling indexes from NAHB
 Economics, are included in Haver's SURVEYS database. The
 expectation figure is available in Haver's MMSAMER database.

 <a href="/comment/120416k_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120416k.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/120416l_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120416l.png"></a> 
 
 <table class="centered" border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
 <colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" ><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S4/@S4.HTM" ;="">National
 Association of Home Builders</a></th>
 <th scope="col" >Apr</th>
 <th scope="col" >Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" >Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" >Apr'11</th>
 <th scope="col" >2011</th>
 <th scope="col" >2010</th>
 <th scope="col" >2009</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Composite Housing Market Index, SA
 (All Good=100)</td>
 <td>25</td>
 <td>28</td>
 <td>28</td>
 <td>16</td>
 <td>16</td>
 <td>16</td>
 <td>15</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Single-Family Sales</td>
 <td>26</td>
 <td>29</td>
 <td>30</td>
 <td>15</td>
 <td>16</td>
 <td>16</td>
 <td>13</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Single-Family Sales: Next Six
 Months</td>
 <td>32</td>
 <td>36</td>
 <td>34</td>
 <td>22</td>
 <td>23</td>
 <td>23</td>
 <td>24</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Traffic of Prospective Buyers</td>
 <td>18</td>
 <td>22</td>
 <td>22</td>
 <td>13</td>
 <td>11</td>
 <td>12</td>
 <td>13</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Northeast</td>
 <td>29</td>
 <td>25</td>
 <td>20</td>
 <td>20</td>
 <td>17</td>
 <td>20</td>
 <td>17</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Midwest</td>
 <td>23</td>
 <td>31</td>
 <td>30</td>
 <td>14</td>
 <td>14</td>
 <td>14</td>
 <td>13</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >South</td>
 <td>24</td>
 <td>27</td>
 <td>25</td>
 <td>15</td>
 <td>18</td>
 <td>17</td>
 <td>16</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >West</td>
 <td>32</td>
 <td>32</td>
 <td>43</td>
 <td>18</td>
 <td>15</td>
 <td>13</td>
 <td>12</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
 </table>
 
</body></html>

The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo reported weaker housing activity. The Composite Housing Market Index for April fell to 25 which was its lowest since January. Earlier figures were unrevised The index of single- [...]

U.S. Home Builders' Index Declines

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 
 
 <a href="/comment/120416e_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120416e.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/120416f_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120416f.png"></a> 
 
 The Empire State Factory Index of General Business Conditions for
 April fell to 6.56 from an unrevised 20.21 in March. Consensus
 expectations had been for a lesser decline to 18.0. Based on these
 figures, Haver Analytics calculates an index that is compatible to the ISM
 series. The adjusted figure fell to 53.8, its lowest level since
 December. Since inception in 2001, the business conditions index
 has a 64% correlation with the quarterly change in real GDP.
 The component series showed broad-based weakness. This month, the
 figures for new orders, shipments, unfilled orders, and delivery times
 each were down. Offsetting these declines was a rise in inventories and in
 the employment index to its highest since late-2006. During the last ten
 years there has been a 76% correlation between the employment index and
 the m/m change in the BLS measure of factory sector employment. Also to
 the downside was the prices paid index which slipped m/m but remained up
 sharply versus its November low. During the last ten years there has been
 a 62% correlation between the index and the 3-month change in the
 intermediate goods PPI.
 Looking ahead, the Empire State index of expected business
 conditions in six months fell for the third straight month. The
 decline was led by lower readings for employment, technology spending,
 prices paid and delivery times.
 The Empire State figures are diffusion indexes which are calculated by
 subtracting the percent of respondents reporting poorer business
 conditions from those reporting improvement. Thus, they have a good
 correlation with growth in the series covered. The data is available in
 Haver's SURVEYS database. The ISM-adjusted headline index is
 calculated by Haver Analytics. The series date back only to 2001. The
 Consensus expectation figure is in Haver's AS1REPNA database.
 
 <a href="/comment/120416g_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120416g.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/120416h_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120416h.png"></a> 
 
 <table class="centered" border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
 <colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" ><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S5/@S511/@S511.HTM">Empire
 State Manufacturing Survey</a></th>
 <th scope="col" >Apr</th>
 <th scope="col" >Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" >Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" >Apr'10</th>
 <th scope="col" >2011</th>
 <th scope="col" >2010</th>
 <th scope="col" >2009</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >General Business
 Conditions (ISM Adjusted)</td>
 <td>53.8</td>
 <td>54.6</td>
 <td>54.1</td>
 <td>55.9</td>
 <td>51.7</td>
 <td>52.9</td>
 <td>45.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >General Business
 Conditions (Diffusion Index, %)</td>
 <td>6.56</td>
 <td>20.21</td>
 <td>19.53</td>
 <td>17.90</td>
 <td>4.33</td>
 <td>13.85</td>
 <td>-2.78</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;New Orders</td>
 <td>6.48</td>
 <td>6.84</td>
 <td>9.73</td>
 <td>17.03</td>
 <td>3.99</td>
 <td>9.93</td>
 <td>-2.51</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Shipments</td>
 <td>6.41</td>
 <td>18.21</td>
 <td>22.79</td>
 <td>21.02</td>
 <td>9.39</td>
 <td>11.61</td>
 <td>2.81</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Unfilled Orders</td>
 <td>-7.23</td>
 <td>-1.23</td>
 <td>-7.06</td>
 <td>2.56</td>
 <td>-5.29</td>
 <td>-6.58</td>
 <td>-13.36</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Delivery Time</td>
 <td>4.82</td>
 <td>7.41</td>
 <td>1.18</td>
 <td>-1.28</td>
 <td>-0.91</td>
 <td>-2.87</td>
 <td>-8.18</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Inventories</td>
 <td>1.20</td>
 <td>0.00</td>
 <td>-4.71</td>
 <td>-1.28</td>
 <td>-1.80</td>
 <td>-1.48</td>
 <td>-22.89</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Number of
 Employees</td>
 <td>19.28</td>
 <td>13.58</td>
 <td>11.76</td>
 <td>23.08</td>
 <td>6.68</td>
 <td>14.29</td>
 <td>-17.28</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Prices Paid</td>
 <td>45.78</td>
 <td>50.62</td>
 <td>25.88</td>
 <td>57.69</td>
 <td>40.66</td>
 <td>29.63</td>
 <td>1.33</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
 </table>
 



</body></html>

The Empire State Factory Index of General Business Conditions for April fell to 6.56 from an unrevised 20.21 in March. Consensus expectations had been for a lesser decline to 18.0. Based on these figures, Haver Analytics calculates an [...]

Empire State Factory Index Shows Moderation In Activity

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 
 
 <a href="/comment/120416a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120416a.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/120416b_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120416b.png"></a> 
 
 Consumers were in a mood to spend last month, on most everything.
 Retail sales increased 0.8% (6.5% y/y) during March following little-
 revised gains of 1.0% and 0.7% during the prior two months. The gain
 exceeded Consensus expectations for a 0.4% rise according to Action
 Economics. The latest increase pulled three-month growth in spending to
 10.4% (AR), the strongest in a year. Higher prices lifted sales at
 gasoline service stations by 1.1% (7.6% y/y). Outlays on motor vehicles
 also were strong and they increased 0.9% (8.3% y/y). Excluding both
 gasoline and autos, retail sales rose 0.8% last month (5.7% y/y) after a
 0.5% February rise. Their three-month growth rate of 9.9% (AR) was the
 strongest in nearly two years. 
 Elsewhere, sales were broadly strong and led by a 3.0% gain (14.1% y/y)
 in building materials purchases. Furniture store sales increased 1.1%
 (6.6% y/y) and electronics stores showed a 1.0% (-3.1% y/y) rise. Clothing
 store sales gained 0.9% (7.9% y/y) and sales at general merchandise stores
 increased 0.7% (3.7% y/y). Sales by nonstore retailers also were firm and
 rose 0.7% (9.3% y/y). Food &amp; beverages
 store sales rose a lesser 0.4% (3.5% y/y) while food service and drinking
 place sales increased 0.3% (6.3% y/y).
 The retail sales figure are available in Haver's USECON
 database. The Action Economics figures are in the AS1REPNA
 database. 
 
 <a href="/comment/120416c_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120416c.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/120416d_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120416d.png"></a> 
 
 <table class="centered" border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
 <colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Retail Spending (%)</th>
 <th scope="col" >Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" >Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" >Jan</th>
 <th scope="col" >Mar Y/Y</th>
 <th scope="col" >2011</th>
 <th scope="col" >2010</th>
 <th scope="col" >2009</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Total Retail Sales &amp; Food
 Services</td>
 <td>0.8</td>
 <td>1.0</td>
 <td>0.7</td>
 <td>6.5</td>
 <td>7.7</td>
 <td>6.4</td>
 <td>-7.0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Excluding Autos</td>
 <td>0.8</td>
 <td>0.9</td>
 <td>1.2</td>
 <td>6.1</td>
 <td>7.2</td>
 <td>5.7</td>
 <td>-5.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Retail Sales</td>
 <td>0.8</td>
 <td>1.1</td>
 <td>0.7</td>
 <td>6.5</td>
 <td>7.9</td>
 <td>6.8</td>
 <td>-7.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Motor Vehicle &amp;
 Parts</td>
 <td>0.9</td>
 <td>1.3</td>
 <td>-1.6</td>
 <td>8.3</td>
 <td>10.1</td>
 <td>9.8</td>
 <td>-13.7</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Retail excluding Autos</td>
 <td>0.8</td>
 <td>1.0</td>
 <td>1.2</td>
 <td>6.0</td>
 <td>7.4</td>
 <td>6.1</td>
 <td>-6.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Gasoline Stations</td>
 <td>1.1</td>
 <td>3.6</td>
 <td>2.0</td>
 <td>7.6</td>
 <td>17.4</td>
 <td>17.0</td>
 <td>-22.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Non-Auto Less Gasoline</td>
 <td>0.8</td>
 <td>0.5</td>
 <td>1.1</td>
 <td>5.7</td>
 <td>5.7</td>
 <td>4.5</td>
 <td>-3.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Food Service</td>
 <td>0.3</td>
 <td>0.5</td>
 <td>1.1</td>
 <td>6.3</td>
 <td>5.9</td>
 <td>2.6</td>
 <td>-0.5</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
 </table>
 
 </body></html>

Consumers were in a mood to spend last month, on most everything. Retail sales increased 0.8% (6.5% y/y) during March following little- revised gains of 1.0% and 0.7% during the prior two months. The gain exceeded Consensus [...]

U.S. Retail Sales Show Broad-based Gains

<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">

<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<title>U</title>
</head>

<body>

<div id="content">
 <div id="rightside">
 <div id="entire" class="col">
 
 
 &nbsp;Consumer prices rose a moderate and expected 0.3% last month,
 down from February's unrevised 0.4% gain. The increase left the y/y
 increase of 2.6% down from its peak of 3.9% six months ago. Prices less
 food and energy increased 0.2%, also as-expected. However, the rise pulled
 the y/y rate of gain to 2.3% which equaled its highest since September
 2008.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Energy prices increased a moderated 0.9% (4.5% y/y) as gasoline prices
 increased 1.7% (9.0% y/y). Fuel oil costs rose a not seasonally adjusted
 1.8% (4.3% y/y) but gas &amp;
 electricity prices fell again by 0.4% (-1.8% y/y).
 Food &amp; beverage prices in March edged up again by 0.1% (3.2%
 y/y) as strength
 continued in prices of meats (5.3% y/y). Elsewhere, gains moderated with
 cereals &amp; bakery products increasing 4.5% y/y and fruits &amp;
 vegetables falling 3.7% y/y.
 For goods alone, prices less food &amp; energy have been
 firming. They rose 0.2% last month and the 12-month increase of 2.1% was up from a 0.3% decline late in
 2010. Apparel prices rose 0.5% and the 4.9% y/y gain was up versus the
 0.5% decline in 2010.
 Furniture &amp; operations costs fell 0.2% (1.1%
 y/y) after two years when prices fell. Motor vehicle prices increased 0.6%
 (2.1% y/y).
 The increase in core service prices of 0.2% (2.3% y/y) reflected
 a 0.2% rise (2.1% y/y) in shelter costs (32% of the CPI). Owners equivalent rent of primary residences
 also rose 0.2% (2.0% y/y). The y/y increase compares to a low of -0.3% in early 2010.
 Education costs rose for the fourth straight month by 0.3% (4.4% y/y) and medical care service
 prices rose a quickened 0.3% (3.5% y/y). Public transportation prices
 increased 0.5% (-0.3% y/y) after four months of decline. Recreation services costs
 rose 0.2% (1.2% y/y).
 The chained CPI, which adjusts for shifts in consumption patterns, rose
 a firmer 0.6% last month (2.4% y/y). Chained prices less food &amp; energy
 rose 0.4% and by 2.1% y/y.
 The consumer price data is available in Haver's USECON database
 while detailed figures can be found in CPIDATA. The expectations
 figure is the AS1REPNA database.
 <table class="centered" border="0" cellspacing="0" width="1231">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="561"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM">Consumer
 Price Index (%)</a></th>
 <th scope="col" width="111">Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" width="111">Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" width="111">Jan</th>
 <th scope="col" width="111">Mar Y/Y</th>
 <th scope="col" width="111">2011</th>
 <th scope="col" width="111">2010</th>
 <th scope="col" width="111">2009</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="561">Total</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">2.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">3.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">1.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">-0.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="561">Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">2.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">1.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">1.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">1.7</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="561">&nbsp;&nbsp; Goods less Food &amp; Energy</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">2.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">1.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">1.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">1.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="561">&nbsp;&nbsp; Services less Energy</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">2.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">1.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">1.9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="561">&nbsp;Food &amp; Beverages</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">3.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">3.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">1.9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="561">&nbsp;Energy</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">3.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">4.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">15.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">9.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">-18.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="grey3">
 <td class="firstcol" width="561"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80113/@E80113.HTM">Chained
 CPI: Total (NSA)</a></td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">2.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">2.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">1.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">-0.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="561">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">2.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">1.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">0.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="111">1.5</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
 </table>
 
 </div>
 </div>
</div>

<div id="footer" class="sprites">
 <ul>
 </ul>
</div>

<div id="content">
 <div id="rightside">
 <div id="entire" class="col">
 U.S. Consumer Sentiment Moderates 
 by <a href="http://www.haver.com/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
 Moeller</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;April 13, 2012
 The University of Michigan's Index of Consumer Sentiment for mid-April
 slipped to 75.7 from 76.2 in March. The figure compared to expectations
 for a rise to 77.0. The reading of current economic conditions fell to
 80.6 which was its lowest since December. The consumer expectation figure
 rose to 72.5, its highest since September 2009. During the last ten years
 there has been a 60% correlation between the level of sentiment and the
 three-month change in real personal consumption expenditures.
 The Reuters/University of Michigan survey data are not seasonally
 adjusted. The readings are based on telephone interviews with just- over
 300 households. Data are in Haver's USECON database. The
 expectations figure is in Haver's AS1REPNA database.
 The Fed's latest Beige Book covering regional economic
 conditions is available here <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/fullreport20120411.pdf">http://www.federalreserve.gov/fullreport20120411.pdf</a>
 <table class="centered" border="0" cellspacing="0" width="1231">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="507">University of
 Michigan 
 (Q1'66 = 100)</th>
 <th scope="col" width="102">Mid-Apr</th>
 <th scope="col" width="103">Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" width="103">Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" width="103">Apr 
 Y/Y %</th>
 <th scope="col" width="103">2011</th>
 <th scope="col" width="103">2010</th>
 <th scope="col" width="103">2009</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="507">Consumer Sentiment</td>
 <td align="center" width="102">75.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">76.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">75.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">8.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">67.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">71.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">66.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="507">&nbsp;Current Economic Conditions</td>
 <td align="center" width="102">80.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">86.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">83.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">-2.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">79.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">80.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">69.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="507">&nbsp;Consumer Expectations</td>
 <td align="center" width="102">72.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">69.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">70.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">17.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">59.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">66.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="103">64.1</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
 </table>
 
 </div>
 </div>
</div>

<div id="footer" class="sprites">
 <ul>
 </ul>
</div>




</body></html>

Consumer prices rose a moderate and expected 0.3% last month, down from February's unrevised 0.4% gain. The increase left the y/y increase of 2.6% down from its peak of 3.9% six months ago. Prices less food and energy increased 0.2%, [...]

U.S. Overall CPI Gain Eases; Core Rate Firms

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 

 <a href="/comment/120413e_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120413e.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/120413f_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120413f.png"></a> 
 
 The University of Michigan's Index of Consumer Sentiment for mid-April
 slipped to 75.7 from 76.2 in March. The figure compared to expectations
 for a rise to 77.0. The reading of current economic conditions fell to
 80.6 which was its lowest since December. The consumer expectation figure
 rose to 72.5, its highest since September 2009. During the last ten years
 there has been a 60% correlation between the level of sentiment and the
 three-month change in real personal consumption expenditures.
 The Reuters/University of Michigan survey data are not seasonally
 adjusted. The readings are based on telephone interviews with just- over
 300 households. Data are in Haver's USECON database. The
 expectations figure is from Action Economics and is found in Haver's AS1REPNA database.
 The Fed's latest Beige Book covering regional economic
 conditions is available <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/fullreport20120411.pdf">here</a>.
 
 <table class="centered" border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
 <colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >University of
 Michigan 
 (Q1'66 = 100)</th>
 <th scope="col" Mid-Apr</th>
 <th scope="col" >Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" >Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" >Apr 
 Y/Y %</th>
 <th scope="col" >2011</th>
 <th scope="col" >2010</th>
 <th scope="col" >2009</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Consumer Sentiment</td>
 <td>75.7</td>
 <td>76.2</td>
 <td>75.3</td>
 <td>8.5</td>
 <td>67.3</td>
 <td>71.8</td>
 <td>66.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Current Economic Conditions</td>
 <td>80.6</td>
 <td>86.0</td>
 <td>83.0</td>
 <td>-2.3</td>
 <td>79.1</td>
 <td>80.9</td>
 <td>69.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Consumer Expectations</td>
 <td>72.5</td>
 <td>69.8</td>
 <td>70.3</td>
 <td>17.7</td>
 <td>59.8</td>
 <td>66.0</td>
 <td>64.1</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
 </table>
 
</body></html>

The University of Michigan's Index of Consumer Sentiment for mid-April slipped to 75.7 from 76.2 in March. The figure compared to expectations for a rise to 77.0. The reading of current economic conditions fell to 80.6 which was its [...]

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Moderates

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 
 
 <a href="/comment/120413a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120413a.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/120413b_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120413b.png"></a> 
 
 Consumer prices rose a moderate and expected 0.3% last month,
 down from February's unrevised 0.4% gain. The increase left the y/y
 increase of 2.6% down from its peak of 3.9% six months ago. Prices less
 food and energy increased 0.2%, also as-expected. However, the rise pulled
 the y/y rate of gain to 2.3% which equaled its highest since September
 2008.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Energy prices increased a moderated 0.9% (4.5% y/y) as gasoline prices
 increased 1.7% (9.0% y/y). Fuel oil costs rose a not seasonally adjusted
 1.8% (4.3% y/y) but gas &amp;
 electricity prices fell again by 0.4% (-1.8% y/y).
 Food &amp; beverage prices in March edged up again by 0.1% (3.2%
 y/y) as strength
 continued in prices of meats (5.3% y/y). Elsewhere, gains moderated with
 cereals &amp; bakery products increasing 4.5% y/y and fruits &amp;
 vegetables falling 3.7% y/y.
 For goods alone, prices less food &amp; energy have been
 firming. They rose 0.2% last month and the 12-month increase of 2.1% was up from a 0.3% decline late in
 2010. Apparel prices rose 0.5% and the 4.9% y/y gain was up versus the
 0.5% decline in 2010.
 Furniture &amp; operations costs fell 0.2% (1.1%
 y/y) after two years when prices fell. Motor vehicle prices increased 0.6%
 (2.1% y/y).
 The increase in core service prices of 0.2% (2.3% y/y) reflected
 a 0.2% rise (2.1% y/y) in shelter costs (32% of the CPI). Owners equivalent rent of primary residences
 also rose 0.2% (2.0% y/y). The y/y increase compares to a low of -0.3% in early 2010.
 Education costs rose for the fourth straight month by 0.3% (4.4% y/y) and medical care service
 prices rose a quickened 0.3% (3.5% y/y). Public transportation prices
 increased 0.5% (-0.3% y/y) after four months of decline. Recreation services costs
 rose 0.2% (1.2% y/y).
 The chained CPI, which adjusts for shifts in consumption patterns, rose
 a firmer 0.6% last month (2.4% y/y). Chained prices less food &amp; energy
 rose 0.4% and by 2.1% y/y.
 The consumer price data is available in Haver's USECON database
 while detailed figures can be found in CPIDATA. The expectations
 figure is from Action Economics and is found in the AS1REPNA database.
	 Some Reflections on the Crisis and the Policy Response is today's speech by Fed Chairman Ben S.
 Bernanke and it can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20120413a.htm">here</a>.
	 
 
 <a href="/comment/120413c_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120413c.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/120413d_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120413d.png"></a> 
 
 <table class="centered" border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
 <colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" ><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM">Consumer
 Price Index (%)</a></th>
 <th scope="col" >Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" >Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" >Jan</th>
 <th scope="col" >Mar Y/Y</th>
 <th scope="col" >2011</th>
 <th scope="col" >2010</th>
 <th scope="col" >2009</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Total</td>
 <td>0.3</td>
 <td>0.4</td>
 <td>0.2</td>
 <td>2.6</td>
 <td>3.1</td>
 <td>1.6</td>
 <td>-0.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
 <td>0.2</td>
 <td>0.1</td>
 <td>0.2</td>
 <td>2.3</td>
 <td>1.7</td>
 <td>1.0</td>
 <td>1.7</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Goods less Food &amp; Energy</td>
 <td>0.2</td>
 <td>0.1</td>
 <td>0.2</td>
 <td>2.1</td>
 <td>1.3</td>
 <td>1.1</td>
 <td>1.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Services less Energy</td>
 <td>0.2</td>
 <td>0.1</td>
 <td>0.2</td>
 <td>2.3</td>
 <td>1.8</td>
 <td>0.9</td>
 <td>1.9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Food &amp; Beverages</td>
 <td>0.1</td>
 <td>0.1</td>
 <td>0.2</td>
 <td>3.2</td>
 <td>3.6</td>
 <td>0.8</td>
 <td>1.9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Energy</td>
 <td>0.9</td>
 <td>3.2</td>
 <td>0.2</td>
 <td>4.5</td>
 <td>15.2</td>
 <td>9.6</td>
 <td>-18.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="grey3">
 <td class="firstcol" ><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80113/@E80113.HTM">Chained
 CPI: Total (NSA)</a></td>
 <td>0.6</td>
 <td>0.4</td>
 <td>0.4</td>
 <td>2.4</td>
 <td>2.8</td>
 <td>1.4</td>
 <td>-0.5</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
 <td>0.4</td>
 <td>0.3</td>
 <td>0.2</td>
 <td>2.1</td>
 <td>1.5</td>
 <td>0.7</td>
 <td>1.5</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
 </table>
 
</body></html>

Robert Brusca

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 
 
 <a href="/comment/120412l_big.png" name="modal"><img class="large" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120412l.png" align="left"></a>
 The ECB's monthly report noted that inflation was expected to hover above its limit of 2% in 2012 with 'upside risks prevailing.' 
 Still the ECB regards this as broadly consistent with price stability. A moderate recovery with downside risks is the other half 
 of the equation. In the wake of that report for the whole of the Zone, we have inflation data from France for March. The headline 
 for the French HICP was up by 0.5% a bit stronger than for the French domestic inflation measure. In the domestic report we also 
 get a view of inflation less energy which is up by 0.4%. That metric is missing from the HICP framework at this time.
 The chart shows that French ex energy inflation trends have risen sharply and do not really show any signs of abating. Still, 
 the Yr/Yr pace is not an issue with the gain at 1.9%.. The German ex-energy measure is not yet available but as of February it 
 was up at a 1.0% pace. So French inflation may be causing France to lose competitiveness Vs Germany. The two measure of French 
 headline inflation (HICP and domestic) are a bit ahead of the same two German rates which we do have in hand for March.
 With the competiveness losses in the weaker EMU countries quite clear, these sorts of comparisons are important to keep in mind. 
 Also France has elections in gear and the Socialist candidate wants to drastically raise the top tax rate and lower the retirement 
 age...possibly sending France into another ice-age It is not clear how France, hit with the shock of such a higher top-tax rate, 
 would respond and despite such a hike lowering the retirement age to 60 which is another plank in that platform would certainly put 
 France's fiscal trend on an opposite track to just about every other nation in Europe. And this would be a structural trend not a 
 cyclical bump intended to enhance growth and then be withdrawn.
 Still the trends for French inflation are not so bad. If we put aside the other worries France's situation is manageable. 
 Across the eleven main price categories in the domestic inflation measure France sees inflation accelerating in three months 
 compared to six months in only 27% of the categories; that is with the rate of headline inflation at 2.9% which is clearly too 
 strong. But with ex-energy inflation up at just a 1.6% pace, which is modest the three-month situation is not out of control. 
 Over six months French inflation is accelerating in 63% of the categories with headline inflation at a 3% pace but again ex-energy 
 inflation is tempered at 2%. The 12-month inflation figures show the core at a mild 1.9% pace with the headline at 2.3% and diffusion 
 showing that inflation is accelerating compared to one year ago ( when its pace was 2.1%) in 54% of the categories. All in all that 
 is quite benign.
 While those metrics may not say that the inflation situation is in tip top shape in France they do show a situation with pressure 
 largely contained. The all-important but not targeted ex-energy rate shows that inflation is not being allowed to spread and the 
 impact of on inflation on the headline is something that cannot be fought off in the short run. And energy prices have been 
 stimulated recently across the global stage.
 March has been a relatively 'bad' month for French inflation, yet the trend has not been blown out of proportion by the month's 
 reading. Europe, at the same, is undergoing stress again with Spanish and Portuguese auctions showing strains and Italy suffering some 
 knock-on effects from those strains. In this environment the ECB is content to let inflation have a mild continuing overshoot.
 The big issues for France will concern what happens at the polls since if Sarkozy loses there is the possibility of putting French 
 fiscal policy on a track that is out of sync with the rest of Europe. Sarkozy may not be very popular, but a shift to more fiscal 
 expansion at this time could unravel a lot of the success France has had in being able to shadow Germany and its low inflation 
 performance in the Zone. Events in the South of the Zone are revealing day by day why France will not want to give up its ability 
 to continue to track German price developments. In the Zone you fall behind Germany at your own peril.

 <table class="centered" border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
 <colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th scope="col" colspan="8">France HICP and CPI Details</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr class="even">
 <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
 <td colspan="3">Mo/Mo %</td>
 <td colspan="3">SAAR %</td>
 <td>Yr/Yr</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="grey3">
 <td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
 <td>Mar'12</td>
 <td>Feb'12</td>
 <td>Jan'12</td>
 <td>3Mo</td>
 <td>6Mo</td>
 <td>12Mo</td>
 <td>Yr Ago</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol">HICP Total</td>
 <td>0.5%</td>
 <td>0.1%</td>
 <td>0.1%</td>
 <td>2.7%</td>
 <td>3.1%</td>
 <td>2.6%</td>
 <td>2.1%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="grey3">
 <td class="firstcol" colspan="8">CPI</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol">All</td>
 <td>0.4%</td>
 <td>0.1%</td>
 <td>0.2%</td>
 <td>2.9%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">3.0%</td>
 <td>2.3%</td>
 <td>2.0%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol">CPIxE</td>
 <td>0.4%</td>
 <td>0.0%</td>
 <td>0.0%</td>
 <td>1.6%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">2.0%</td>
 <td>1.9%</td>
 <td>0.9%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol">Food</td>
 <td>0.5%</td>
 <td>0.7%</td>
 <td>-0.6%</td>
 <td>2.1%</td>
 <td>2.5%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">3.6%</td>
 <td>0.8%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol">Alcohol</td>
 <td>0.5%</td>
 <td>0.5%</td>
 <td>0.5%</td>
 <td>5.9%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">6.3%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">5.0%</td>
 <td>3.0%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol">Clothing &amp; Shoes</td>
 <td>5.9%</td>
 <td>-1.2%</td>
 <td>-2.1%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">9.9%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">8.6%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">5.4%</td>
 <td>0.9%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol">Rent &amp;Util</td>
 <td>0.1%</td>
 <td>0.6%</td>
 <td>0.6%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">5.2%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">4.3%</td>
 <td>3.5%</td>
 <td>4.9%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol">Health Care</td>
 <td>-0.3%</td>
 <td>-0.2%</td>
 <td>0.0%</td>
 <td>-1.6%</td>
 <td>-1.1%</td>
 <td>-0.7%</td>
 <td>-0.3%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol">Transport</td>
 <td>0.4%</td>
 <td>0.0%</td>
 <td>0.4%</td>
 <td>3.4%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">3.8%</td>
 <td>3.0%</td>
 <td>4.7%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol">Communication</td>
 <td>-0.7%</td>
 <td>-1.9%</td>
 <td>-1.0%</td>
 <td>-13.1%</td>
 <td>-7.3%</td>
 <td>-7.0%</td>
 <td>-1.3%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol">Rec &amp;Culture</td>
 <td>0.1%</td>
 <td>0.2%</td>
 <td>-0.2%</td>
 <td>0.1%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">-0.5%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">-0.2%</td>
 <td>-1.0%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol">Education</td>
 <td>0.2%</td>
 <td>0.3%</td>
 <td>-0.4%</td>
 <td>0.1%</td>
 <td>1.2%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">1.9%</td>
 <td>1.6%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol">Restaurant &amp; Hotel</td>
 <td>0.7%</td>
 <td>0.1%</td>
 <td>0.7%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">6.1%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">4.4%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">2.8%</td>
 <td>2.1%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol">Other</td>
 <td>0.0%</td>
 <td>0.3%</td>
 <td>0.6%</td>
 <td>3.7%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">4.3%</td>
 <td>2.8%</td>
 <td>2.8%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol">Diffusion</td>
 <td>&nbsp;</td>
 <td>&nbsp;</td>
 <td>&nbsp;</td>
 <td>27.3%</td>
 <td style="color: red;">63.6%</td>
 <td>54.5%</td>
 <td>&nbsp;</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="grey2">
 <td class="firstcol">Type:</td>
 <td colspan="3">Diffusion: Compared to</td>
 <td>6Mo</td>
 <td>12Mo</td>
 <td>Yr Ago</td>
 <td>--</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>
 
</body></html>

The ECB's monthly report noted that inflation was expected to hover above its limit of 2% in 2012 with 'upside risks prevailing.' Still the ECB regards this as broadly consistent with price stability. A moderate recovery with downside [...]

French Consumer Prices Show Some Pressure

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 
 
 <a href="/comment/120412h_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120412h.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/120412i_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120412i.png"></a> 
 
 Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose 13,000 to 380,000 last
 week and this figure was the highest level since the end of January. The
 weekly number compared to Consensus expectations for 355,000 claims. The
 four-week moving average of initial claims rose slightly to 368,500 but
 remained near the cycle's low. During the last ten years there has been a
 74% correlation between the level of claims and the m/m change in nonfarm
 payrolls.
 Continuing claims for unemployment insurance fell sharply to 3.251M
 during the week of March 31, their lowest since July 2008. The insured
 rate of unemployment held at 2.6%, the lowest since August 2008. This
 particular count covers only "regular" programs and does not
 include all extended benefit and other specialized jobless insurance
 programs. In the week of March 24, the latest figure available, the grand
 total of all benefit recipients fell to 6.953M (-16.4% y/y).
 By state, the insured unemployment rate varied greatly with Virginia
 (1.5%), Texas (1.6%), Florida (1.8%), Louisiana (1.9%), Arizona (2.1%),
 Tennessee (2.1%), and Indiana (2.2%) at the low end of the range. At the
 high end were rates in New York (3.3%), Massachusetts (3.6%), Michigan
 (3.6%), Illinois (3.8%), California (3.9% ), New Jersey (4.0%), and
 Pennsylvania (4.3%).
 Data on weekly unemployment insurance programs are contained in Haver's
 WEEKLY database, including the seasonal factor series, and they are
 summarized monthly in USECON. Data for individual states, including
 the unemployment rates that determine individual state eligibility for the
 extended benefits programs and specific "tiers" of the emergency
 program, are in REGIONW, a database of weekly data for states and
 various regional divisions. Action Economics consensus estimates are in AS1REPNA.

 
 <a href="/comment/120412j_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120412j.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/120412k_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/120412k.png"></a> 
 
 <table class="centered" border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
 <colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Unemployment Insurance
 (000s)</th>
 <th scope="col" >04/07/12</th>
 <th scope="col" >03/31/12</th>
 <th scope="col" >03/24/12</th>
 <th scope="col" >Y/Y%</th>
 <th scope="col" >2011</th>
 <th scope="col" >2010</th>
 <th scope="col" >2009</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Initial Claims</td>
 <td>380</td>
 <td>367</td>
 <td>363</td>
 <td>-8.7</td>
 <td>409</td>
 <td>459</td>
 <td>574</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Continuing Claims</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>3,251</td>
 <td>3,349</td>
 <td>-13.1</td>
 <td>3,745</td>
 <td>4,544</td>
 <td>5,807</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Insured Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>2.6</td>
 <td>2.6</td>
 <td>3.0 
 (3/11)</td>
 <td>3.0</td>
 <td>3.6</td>
 <td>4.4</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Total "All Programs"
 (NSA)</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>6.953M</td>
 <td>-18.4</td>
 <td>2.750M</td>
 <td>9.850M</td>
 <td>9.163M</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
 </table>
 
</body></html>

Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose 13,000 to 380,000 last week and this figure was the highest level since the end of January. The weekly number compared to Consensus expectations for 355,000 claims. The four-week moving [...]

U.S. Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance Rise

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

AI boosting US investment in data centers

US productivity growth has been significantly faster than in other major economies

Consumers' short-term US inflation expectations still elevated while longer-term expectations of financial markets are steady

US financial markets have gotten used to elevated policy uncertainty

FOMC now expects more rate cuts going forward than in June

China gaining ASEAN exports while US exports slump

Job openings less than the number unemployed in July for first time since 2021

Reaccelerating goods price inflation along with sticky services inflation clouds the outlook

Falling oil prices aren't pulling down inflation expectations, pointing to a boost from increased tariffs

Equity market exuberance outpacing macroeconomic data

Apart from Japan, Blue Chip forecasters expect further sizable monetary easing

US production rebounded in Q2, but demand continued to slow

US leader, Germany trailer for real GDP growth over past 3 years

Negative US inflation surprises leading G10 down

Deflation continues in China

Incoming data surprising on downside in US; positive surprises elsewhere

FOMC expects more inflation and less growth than in March

With escalation of Israel/Iran conflict, geopolitical risk has recently surged while US trade policy uncertainty has ebbed

Renewed supply chain pressures point to a rebound in global inflation ahead

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

251201J50.jpg

251201K50.jpg

Factory sector activity remains under pressure. The ISM U.S. manufacturing PMI slipped to 48.2 during November following a decline to 48.7 in October after rising to 49.1 during September, according to the Institute for Supply Management. These figures are below the 50 expansion-contraction dividing line. As a result, they indicate that U.S. manufacturing sector activity contracted for the ninth consecutive month. Nevertheless, the reading in November stood above a low of 46.9 in October of last year. A November index of 49.1 had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.

Declines amongst the component series were widespread last month. The new orders component declined to 47.4 after rising to 49.4 in October. It was the lowest level since July, down from a January high of 55.1. A slightly higher 20.7% (NSA) of respondents reported higher orders while an increased 28.4% reported them lower. The employment reading fell to a three-month low of 44.0 from 46.0 in October. A lessened 10.8% (NSA) of respondents raised hiring while a higher 25.1% reduced it. The supplier deliveries index dropped sharply to 49.3 from 54.2. A greatly lessened 6.1% (NSA) of respondents reported slower delivery speeds while a higher 7.6% reported faster speeds.

Working higher, the production index rose to 51.4 during November and reversed its October decline to 48.2. An increased 22.8% (NSA) of respondents reported higher production while a lessened 19.8% reported a decline. The inventories index increased sharply to 48.9 last month after falling to 45.8 in October. A slightly increased 14.4% (NSA) of respondents reported higher inventories while a lessened 17.7% reported them lower.

The prices index edged higher to 58.5 (NSA) during November after falling to 58.0 in October. It remained below a high of 69.8 in April, but remained well above its low of 39.4 in December 2022. A roughly steady 27.2% of respondents reported higher prices, a ten month low, while a lessened 10.2% reported prices lower.

In other series, the export orders index rose to a seasonally adjusted 46.2, a three-month high, in November after rising to 44.5 in October. It remained up from a 40.1 May low. The imports index surged to an eight-month high of 48.9 last month from 45.4 in October. Nevertheless, the orders index remained below a high of 52.6 in February. The order backlog series fell to a seven-month low of 44.0.

The ISM figures are based on responses from over 400 purchasing and supply executives from 18 industries, which are weighted according to each industry’s contribution to GDP. These data are diffusion indexes where a reading above 50 indicates expansion; below 50 indicates contraction. The ISM Manufacturing PMI is a composite index based on the diffusion indexes of five of the indexes (seasonally adjusted) with equal weights: New Orders, Production, Employment, Supplier Deliveries, and Inventories. 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.

251201L50.jpg

251201M50.jpg

- Decline is to lowest level since July.
- New orders, employment & supplier deliveries drop.
- Despite a small gain, price index remains near ten-month low.

U.S. ISM Manufacturing PMI Declines in November; Price Index Edges Higher

251201E.jpg

The S&P manufacturing PMIs for November show split results with 9 reporters showing improvement and 9 reporters showing deterioration. The median value among reporters in November is 49.0, exactly the same as its the three-month average, but it's a downtick from 49.5 in October. The split in terms of improving or deteriorating is 50/50 in November and that compares to 61.1% improving versus about 39% deteriorating in October. Both of these diffusion readings are a tremendous step up from September when only 11% of the reporters improved month-to-month.

Sequentially, there's hardly any change at all and none worth speaking about. All of the values for three-months, six-months, and 12-months are either 49.0 or 49.1. Now compared to 12 months ago shows a diffusion of 55.6, indicating relatively more improvement than deterioration. For six-months versus 12-months, diffusion is at 66.7, indicating about 2/3 are improving and only one-third deteriorating. However, over three-months compared to six-months, the split on diffusion is at 50%, a wholly neutral value.

The queue standings that rank the November observations on data back to January 2021 show above 50% readings for eight of the 18 reporters in the table. Above their 50% mark (which means above their medians) are the euro area, Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam. The global manufacturing results from the JP Morgan index which employs weighting is much higher at 68.4 percentile and compares to an unweighted Asian average of 54.7%, and the total average at 45.8%. Neither of the two average statistics employ weighting.

Assessing the change in manufacturing from January 2021 across the 18 reporters, only four have manufacturing indexes that are higher than they were at that time; those reporters are Mexico, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam.

251201.jpg

On balance, there is some improvement. The JP Morgan indexes provide us with some of the most upbeat results but even the JP Morgan responses, the three-month, six-month, and 12-months PMI weighted averages show diffusion values between 50 and 51. The last three months are without much trend and with reading also between 50 and 51.

The bottom line is really that the manufacturing sector continues to move more or less sideways with manufacturing relatively stagnant oscillating between slightly growing and slightly contracting. There's no strong sense of momentum in either direction and even the breath statistics tend to run hot and then cold, obscuring any true underlying signal. The manufacturing sector globally continues to essentially stumble in the dark.

S&P MFG PMIs Remain Mixed

251126V5.jpg

251126W5.jpg

New orders for durable goods rose 0.5% (7.2% y/y) in September after a 3.0% jump, which followed a 2.8% July decline. A 1.0% shortfall had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.

A 0.4% (15.8% y/y) rise in transportation sector orders followed an 8.0% August surge, led by commercial aircraft orders. Motor vehicle & parts orders rose 0.4% (4.0% y/y) after increasing 0.8% in August. Orders excluding transportation rose 0.6% (3.1% y/y) after a 0.5% gain. Machinery orders edged 0.1% higher (6.1% y/y) in September after a 2.2% rise. Orders for computers & electronic products rose 0.5% (3.3% y/y) following a 1.1% decline while electrical equipment & appliance orders strengthened 1.5% (6.6% y/y), the strongest of six consecutive increases. Orders for fabricated metal products increased 0.5% (0.8% y/y) for a second month while primary metals orders surged 1.4% (5.4% y/y) after a 0.5% rise.

Shipments of all manufacturing industries eased 0.1% in September (+2.3% y/y) after falling 0.3% in August. Shipments of durable goods edged 0.1% higher (4.8% y/y) after easing 0.1%. Nondefense capital goods shipments excluding aircraft, an indicator of equipment investment in the national accounts, rose 0.9% (4.1% y/y) in September after falling 0.1% in August. Machinery shipments increased 1.4% (4.6% y/y) after easing 0.1% while computer & electronic product shipments were off 0.1% (+4.9% y/y) following a 0.2% dip. Electronic equipment, appliances & components shipments rose 0.4% (4.1% y/y) after rising 0.1%. Motor vehicle & parts shipments rose 0.5% (3.9% y/y) during September following a 0.6% rise. Nondurable goods shipments eased 0.2% (-0.1% y/y) after 0.4% decline.

Unfilled durable goods orders increased 0.7% (8.2% y/y) in September for the second month in a row. Excluding a 1.0% surge in transportation, unfilled increased a steady 0.2% (0.9% y/y). Total factory sector inventories eased 0.1% (+1.4% y/y). Durable goods inventories slipped 0.1% (+1.9% y/y) for the second consecutive month. Excluding the transportation sector, durable goods inventories rose 0.2% (2.3% y/y). Nondurable goods inventories were roughly stable (+0.6% y/y) for the second straight month.

The factory sector data are available in Haver’s **USECON** database. The Action Economics Forecast Survey is in the **AS1REPNA** database.

251126X5.jpg

251126Y5.jpg

- Broad-based orders improvement follows August jump.
- Durable shipments gain reverses prior month’s dip.
- Order backlogs grow for second month; inventories ease.

U.S. Advance Durable Goods Orders Unexpectedly Increase in September

Sandy Batten

251126A2.jpg

251126B2.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance fell to 216,000 (unchanged y/y) in the week ended November 22 from a slightly upwardly revised 222,000 in the prior week (previously 220,000). This was the lowest weekly reading since April and was tied for the lowest since February. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected 226,000 initial claims for last week. The four-week moving average of initial claims edged down to 223,750 from 224,750.

Federal government workers filed 1,724 claims in the week ended November 15, the fourth consecutive weekly decline from a recent high of 10,062 in the week of October 18.

Continuing claims (previous claims filers who are still receiving unemployment benefits) continued to edge higher, rising to 1.960 million in the week of November 15 from a downwardly revised 1.953 million in the prior week (previously 1.974 million). While new claims have been well contained recently, continuing claims have risen persistently since midyear, indicating that while the pace of layoffs has not increased meaningfully, hiring has slowed. Consequently, those unemployed are having more difficulty finding new jobs and hence are receiving unemployment benefits for longer, a sign that labor market conditions are softening.

Federal government employees continuing benefits fell to 33,083 in the week of November 8, the first weekly decline since the end of August, from 38,867 in the previous week.

In the week ending November 15, the insured rate of unemployment (the number of beneficiaries as a percent of covered employment) was unchanged at 1.3%. It has been at this rate since the end of May.

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ended November 8, the highest unemployment rates were in New Jersey (2.30%), Washington (2.20%), Massachusetts (1.90%), District of Columbia (1.90%), and California (1.80%). The lowest were in South Dakota (0.30%), Florida (0.30%), North Carolina (0.40%), and Louisiana (0.40%). Rates in other notable states include Pennsylvania (1.40%), Illinois (1.50%), New York (1.60%), Texas (1.10%), Michigan (1.40%) and Ohio (0.80%). 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. The expectations figure is from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in the **AS1REPNA** database.

251126C2.jpg

251126D2.jpg

- Initial unemployment claims fell to 216,000, the lowest weekly figure since April.
- Continued claims edged up to 1.96 million, indicating that the unemployed are still having increasing difficulty finding a job.

U.S. Initial Unemployment Insurance Claims Fell in Latest Week

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

251126A1.jpg

251126B1.jpg

The number of weekly mortgage loans rose 0.2% (52.7% y/y) during the week ended November 21 after declining 5.2% (+62.0% y/y) during the week ended November 14, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey. Applications for loans to purchase a house surged 7.6% (18.8% y/y) in the latest week after declining 2.3% (+24.0% y/y) in the prior week. Applications for loan refinancing declined 5.7% (+117.3% y/y) in the week ended November 21, following a decline of 7.3% (+124.7% y/y) in the week ended November 14.

The effective interest rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage increased 3bps to 6.58% in the week ended November 21 from 6.55% during the prior week. The rate on a 15-year fixed rate loan eased 2bps to 5.98% in the latest week from 6.00%, while interest rates on a 30-year JUMBO loan rose 14bps to 6.65% from 6.51%. Rates on a 5-year ARM dropped 31bps to 5.64% from 5.95%. The November 14 rate was the highest rate since the first week of September.

Loans to refinance an existing mortgage fell to 53.4% of total applications in the week ended November 21 from 55.4% in the prior week. The percentage of total loans that were ARMs rose to 7.9% from 7.5% one week earlier.

The average loan size rose 0.2% w/w to $395,600 in the week ended November 21 from $394,900 the prior week. The size of conventional purchase loans declined 1.4% w/w to $427,200 from $433,400, while the size of refinanced loans rose 1.1% w/w to $368,000 from $363,900 one week earlier.

The Mortgage Bankers Association Survey covers 75% of all U.S. retail residential mortgage applications and has been conducted weekly since 1990. Respondents include mortgage bankers, commercial banks and thrifts. The base period and value for all indexes is March 16, 1990=100. The figures for weekly mortgage applications and interest rates are available in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database.

- Applications for loans to purchase surged, while those for refinancing declined.
- Interest rates on 30-year fixed-rate mortgage inched up for the fourth consecutive week.
- Average loan size rose in the latest week.

Economy in Brief: 2012

Jump to:

U.S. Home Builders' Index Declines

Empire State Factory Index Shows Moderation In Activity

U.S. Retail Sales Show Broad-based Gains

U.S. Overall CPI Gain Eases; Core Rate Firms

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Moderates

U.S. Overall CPI Gain Eases; Core Rate Firms

French Consumer Prices Show Some Pressure

U.S. Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance Rise