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/100505i.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>The outplacement firm Challenger, Grey &amp; Christmas
reported that the level of layoffs fell last month to 38,326. It was
the lowest level since mid-2006 and remained well under the cycle-high
of 241,748 in January of last year. The decline was led by sharply
lower layoffs in the government, computer, energy, entertainment, and
retail industries. An increased level of layoffs occurred in the
construction, financial, health care and utility industries.</p>
<p>Challenger also samples firms' hiring plans. April plans
increased for the second month consecutive month to the highest level
since 2005. They rose in the transportation, consumer goods, health
care and financial industries though most elsewhere they fell.</p>
<p>During the last ten years there has been a 67% (inverse)
correlation between the three-month moving average of announced job
cuts and the three-month change in payroll employment<em>.</em>
Job cut announcements differ from layoffs. Many are achieved through
attrition, early retirement or just never occur.</p>
<p>The Challenger figures are available in Haver's <b>SURVEYS</b>
database.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a ;="" href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S3/@S301/@S301.HTM" style="color: black;"><b>Challenger, Gray &amp;
Christmas</b></a></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>April</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>March</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>February</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>Y/Y</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2009</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2008</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2007</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Announced Job Cuts</td>
<td>38,326</td>
<td>67,611</td>
<td>42,090</td>
<td>-71.1%</td>
<td>1,288,030</td>
<td>1,223,993</td>
<td>768,264</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Announced Hiring Plans</td>
<td>15,654</td>
<td>13,994</td>
<td>8,300</td>
<td>-42.2%</td>
<td>272,573</td>
<td>118,600</td>
<td>365,583</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The outplacement firm Challenger, Grey & Christmas reported that the level of layoffs fell last month to 38,326. It was the lowest level since mid-2006 and remained well under the cycle-high of 241,748 in January of last year. The [...]

Challenger Layoffs Reach Cycle Low

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/100505d.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>The services sector continues to improve in EMU with the EMU
and German indices rising in April to their strongest levels since late
in 2007 (France was last stronger in Nov of 2009; Italy&#8217;s index slipped
in April).</p>
<p>While Germany and the overall EMU measures continue to rise
strongly some countries in the Zone are slowing their progress, as the
French and Italian comparisons show. The services sector is still where
the jobs are and this sector is not as vibrant as the manufacturing
sector.</p>
<p>The Euro-Area retail sales for April were flat in volume terms
and barley higher Yr/Yr. The consumer sector has just not come alive in
Europe and that is a key part of the services sector.</p>
<p>Looking ahead there will be challenges to Europe&#8217;s service
sector. The ash cloud that shut down air transportation has just shut
down a few more airports in Scotland. Those interruptions will probably
affect services, especially tourism. Greece which is a hot tourism
destination will have been off limits to most tourists during the time
of its upheaval. And, since Greece is in the Zone there is no such
thing as a post crisis &#8216;drachma discount.&#8217; Indeed, with strikes still
in progress in Greece there is no telling how much the tourists season
will harmed as we head into summer.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8">Markit Services Indices for EU/EMU</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="firstcol">&nbsp;
</th>
<th>Apr-10</th>
<th>Mar-10</th>
<th>Feb-10</th>
<th>3Mo</th>
<th>6Mo</th>
<th>12Mo</th>
<th>Percentile</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Euro-Area</td>
<td>55.60</td>
<td>54.08</td>
<td>51.81</td>
<td>53.83</td>
<td>53.44</td>
<td>50.77</td>
<td>76.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>55.22</td>
<td>54.86</td>
<td>51.89</td>
<td>53.99</td>
<td>53.04</td>
<td>51.11</td>
<td>70.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>59.17</td>
<td>53.80</td>
<td>54.60</td>
<td>55.86</td>
<td>57.23</td>
<td>53.72</td>
<td>85.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>54.47</td>
<td>55.34</td>
<td>50.76</td>
<td>53.52</td>
<td>52.53</td>
<td>49.35</td>
<td>69.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Spain</td>
<td>50.93</td>
<td>51.27</td>
<td>47.12</td>
<td>49.77</td>
<td>48.21</td>
<td>45.82</td>
<td>70.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Ireland</td>
<td>51.02</td>
<td>49.61</td>
<td>48.84</td>
<td>49.82</td>
<td>48.15</td>
<td>46.05</td>
<td>56.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;" class="grey3">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">EU only</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">UK (CIPs)</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>56.46</td>
<td>58.41</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;" class="grey3">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">EU Commission Indices
for EU and EMU</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">EU Index</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Apr-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Mar-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Feb-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">3Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">6Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">12Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Percentile</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">EU Services</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-16.33</td>
<td>-16.33</td>
<td>-19.42</td>
<td>54.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">EMU </td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Apr-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Mar-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Feb-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">3Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">6Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">12Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Percentile</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Services</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>2.33</td>
<td>-0.17</td>
<td>-8.21</td>
<td>55.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Cons Confidence</td>
<td>-15</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-16.33</td>
<td>-16.33</td>
<td>-11.94</td>
<td>54.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;" class="grey3">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Consumer confidence by
country</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany-Ccon</td>
<td>-7</td>
<td>-13</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-12.33</td>
<td>-15.00</td>
<td>-19.58</td>
<td>60.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">France-Ccon</td>
<td>-20</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-18.67</td>
<td>-18.00</td>
<td>-22.75</td>
<td>42.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Ital-Ccon</td>
<td>-21</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>-21.67</td>
<td>-19.17</td>
<td>-18.75</td>
<td>31.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">UK-Ccon</td>
<td>-6</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>-2</td>
<td>-4.33</td>
<td>-6.00</td>
<td>-10.42</td>
<td>76.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">percentile is over
range since May 2000</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The services sector continues to improve in EMU with the EMU and German indices rising in April to their strongest levels since late in 2007 (France was last stronger in Nov of 2009; Italy’s index slipped in April). While Germany and [...]

EMU Service Sector Continues To Improve

<!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/100505a.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>Positive growth in the number of jobs has returned. The latest
report from the payroll processor ADP, in their National Employment
Report, indicated that private nonfarm payroll levels rose in April by
32,000, the third consecutive month of increase. The gain roughly
matched Consensus expectations. Earlier data were slightly revised.<span class="style1"></span></p>
<p>ADP compiled the estimate from its database of individual
companies' payroll information. Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, the St.
Louis economic consulting firm, developed the methodology for
transforming the raw data into an economic indicator.</p>
</span><span class="style1">


</span>The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics will report April
payroll employment this Friday<span class="style1">. For
comparison, the March increase of 19,000 in ADP's measure of private
nonfarm payrolls was accompanied by a rise of 123,000 jobs in the BLS
measure of private sector payrolls.</span><span class="style1">
According to ADP and Macro-Advisers, the correlation between the
monthly percentage change in the ADP estimate and that in the BLS data
is 0.90.</span><span class="style1">

<p>ADP reported that private service-producing industry
employment rose for the third consecutive month with a gain of 50,000
(-0.8% y/y). Small-sized payrolls grew 25,000 (-0.6% y/y) while
medium-sized payrolls grew 20,000 (-0.9% y/y). These increases were
accompanied by a modest 5,000 increase (-1.5% y/y) in large service
producing payrolls.</p></span><span class="style1"><p>Though declines in the goods producing sector have lessened,
employment nevertheless fell another 18,000 during April (-7.4% y/y).
The three-month annual rate of change eased to -2.0% versus -17.1% one
year ago. In the manufacturing sector alone, however, payrolls rose
29,000 (-4.9% y/y). The three-month change of 1.3% was the first
positive figure since early-2006. Large goods producing payrolls
increased 9,000 (-7.6% y/y), the first positive change in more than two
years. Small-sized payrolls fell 24,000 (-8.4% y/y) while medium-sized
payrolls fell 3,000 (-6.5% y/y). </p>
</span><span class="style1">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100505b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100505c.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"><strong><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EB/@EB25/@EB25.HTM">ADP National Employment
Report</a></strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>April</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><b>March</b></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>February</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2009</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2008</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2007</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Nonfarm Private Payroll
Employment (m/m Chg., 000s)</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-4.9%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Small
Payroll (1-49)</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>-10</td>
<td>-1.7</td>
<td>-4.1</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>1.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Medium
Payroll (50-499)</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>-2.0</td>
<td>-5.7</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Large
Payroll (&gt;500)</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-4</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
<td>-5.6</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</span>
</body></html>

Positive growth in the number of jobs has returned. The latest report from the payroll processor ADP, in their National Employment Report, indicated that private nonfarm payroll levels rose in April by 32,000, the third consecutive [...]

ADP Report: Job Growth Resumes Led By The Service & Factory Sectors

<!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/100505a.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>Positive growth in the number of jobs has returned. The latest
report from the payroll processor ADP, in their National Employment
Report, indicated that private nonfarm payroll levels rose in April by
32,000, the third consecutive month of increase. The gain roughly
matched Consensus expectations. Earlier data were slightly revised.<span class="style1"></span></p>
<p>ADP compiled the estimate from its database of individual
companies' payroll information. Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, the St.
Louis economic consulting firm, developed the methodology for
transforming the raw data into an economic indicator.</p>
</span><span class="style1">
</span>The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics will report April
payroll employment this Friday<span class="style1">. For
comparison, the March increase of 19,000 in ADP's measure of private
nonfarm payrolls was accompanied by a rise of 123,000 jobs in the BLS
measure of private sector payrolls.</span><span class="style1">
According to ADP and Macro-Advisers, the correlation between the
monthly percentage change in the ADP estimate and that in the BLS data
is 0.90.</span><span class="style1">
<p>ADP reported that private service-producing industry
employment rose for the third consecutive month with a gain of 50,000
(-0.8% y/y). Small-sized payrolls grew 25,000 (-0.6% y/y) while
medium-sized payrolls grew 20,000 (-0.9% y/y). These increases were
accompanied by a modest 5,000 increase (-1.5% y/y) in large service
producing payrolls.</p>
</span><span class="style1">
<p>Though declines in the goods producing sector have lessened,
employment nevertheless fell another 18,000 during April (-7.4% y/y).
The three-month annual rate of change eased to -2.0% versus -17.1% one
year ago. In the manufacturing sector alone, however, payrolls rose
29,000 (-4.9% y/y). The three-month change of 1.3% was the first
positive figure since early-2006. Large goods producing payrolls
increased 9,000 (-7.6% y/y), the first positive change in more than two
years. Small-sized payrolls fell 24,000 (-8.4% y/y) while medium-sized
payrolls fell 3,000 (-6.5% y/y). </p>
</span><span class="style1">
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100505b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100505c.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"><strong><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EB/@EB25/@EB25.HTM">ADP
National Employment
Report</a></strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>April</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><b>March</b></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>February</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y</b></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2009</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2008</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2007</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Nonfarm Private Payroll
Employment (m/m Chg., 000s)</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>-4.9%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Small
Payroll (1-49)</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>-10</td>
<td>-1.7</td>
<td>-4.1</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>1.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Medium
Payroll (50-499)</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>-2.0</td>
<td>-5.7</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Large
Payroll (&gt;500)</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>-4</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
<td>-5.6</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</span>
<span id="articletitle">EMU Service Sector Continues To
Improve</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert
Brusca</a> May 05, 2010</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100505d.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>The services sector continues to improve in EMU with the EMU
and German indices rising in April to their strongest levels since late
in 2007 (France was last stronger in Nov of 2009; Italy&#8217;s index slipped
in April).</p>
<p>While Germany and the overall EMU measures continue to rise
strongly some countries in the Zone are slowing their progress, as the
French and Italian comparisons show. The services sector is still where
the jobs are and this sector is not as vibrant as the manufacturing
sector.</p>
<p>The Euro-Area retail sales for April were flat in volume terms
and barley higher Yr/Yr. The consumer sector has just not come alive in
Europe and that is a key part of the services sector.</p>
<p>Looking ahead there will be challenges to Europe&#8217;s service
sector. The ash cloud that shut down air transportation has just shut
down a few more airports in Scotland. Those interruptions will probably
affect services, especially tourism. Greece which is a hot tourism
destination will have been off limits to most tourists during the time
of its upheaval. And, since Greece is in the Zone there is no such
thing as a post crisis &#8216;drachma discount.&#8217; Indeed, with strikes still
in progress in Greece there is no telling how much the tourists season
will harmed as we head into summer.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8">Markit Services Indices for EU/EMU</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="firstcol">&nbsp;
</th>
<th>Apr-10</th>
<th>Mar-10</th>
<th>Feb-10</th>
<th>3Mo</th>
<th>6Mo</th>
<th>12Mo</th>
<th>Percentile</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Euro-Area</td>
<td>55.60</td>
<td>54.08</td>
<td>51.81</td>
<td>53.83</td>
<td>53.44</td>
<td>50.77</td>
<td>76.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>55.22</td>
<td>54.86</td>
<td>51.89</td>
<td>53.99</td>
<td>53.04</td>
<td>51.11</td>
<td>70.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>59.17</td>
<td>53.80</td>
<td>54.60</td>
<td>55.86</td>
<td>57.23</td>
<td>53.72</td>
<td>85.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>54.47</td>
<td>55.34</td>
<td>50.76</td>
<td>53.52</td>
<td>52.53</td>
<td>49.35</td>
<td>69.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Spain</td>
<td>50.93</td>
<td>51.27</td>
<td>47.12</td>
<td>49.77</td>
<td>48.21</td>
<td>45.82</td>
<td>70.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Ireland</td>
<td>51.02</td>
<td>49.61</td>
<td>48.84</td>
<td>49.82</td>
<td>48.15</td>
<td>46.05</td>
<td>56.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;" class="grey3">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">EU only</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">UK (CIPs)</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>56.46</td>
<td>58.41</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;" class="grey3">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">EU
Commission Indices
for EU and EMU</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">EU
Index</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Apr-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Mar-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Feb-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">3Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">6Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">12Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Percentile</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">EU Services</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-16.33</td>
<td>-16.33</td>
<td>-19.42</td>
<td>54.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">EMU
</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Apr-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Mar-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Feb-10</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">3Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">6Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">12Mo</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">Percentile</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Services</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>2.33</td>
<td>-0.17</td>
<td>-8.21</td>
<td>55.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Cons Confidence</td>
<td>-15</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-16.33</td>
<td>-16.33</td>
<td>-11.94</td>
<td>54.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-weight: bold;" class="grey3">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">Consumer
confidence by
country</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany-Ccon</td>
<td>-7</td>
<td>-13</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-12.33</td>
<td>-15.00</td>
<td>-19.58</td>
<td>60.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">France-Ccon</td>
<td>-20</td>
<td>-19</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>-18.67</td>
<td>-18.00</td>
<td>-22.75</td>
<td>42.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Ital-Ccon</td>
<td>-21</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>-21.67</td>
<td>-19.17</td>
<td>-18.75</td>
<td>31.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">UK-Ccon</td>
<td>-6</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>-2</td>
<td>-4.33</td>
<td>-6.00</td>
<td>-10.42</td>
<td>76.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td colspan="8" class="firstcol">percentile
is over
range since May 2000</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<span id="articletitle">U.S. ISM Nonmanufacturing Index
Steady But Pricing Reaches New High</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> May 5,2010</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100505e.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100505f.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<p>Recovery in the service sector continued last month. The
Institute for Supply Management's (ISM) Composite Index for the service
&amp; construction sectors held steady in April at 55.4, the
highest level since early-2006. Moreover, the series has risen
considerably from a low of 37.2 late in 2008. The latest figure fell
slightly short of Consensus expectations for a reading of 56.0. Since
the series' inception in 1997 there has been a 65% correlation between
the level of the composite index in the nonmanufacturing sector and the
q/q change in real GDP for the services and the construction sectors.</p>
<p>ISM surveys more than 370 purchasing managers in more than 62
industries including law firms, hospitals, government and retailers.
The nonmanufacturing survey dates back to July 1997. The figures are
available in Haver's <b>USECON </b>database.</p>
<p>The business activity index for the nonmanufacturing sector
nudged up to 60.3 which was the highest level since early-2006. The
supplier delivery index also rose indicating slower delivery speeds.
Working the other way, the new orders index retraced a piece of its
March surge but remained near the highest level since 2006. Thirty-six
percent of respondents reported higher orders while only 11% reported
them lower. Finally, the employment index also slipped from the highest
level since April 2008 and remained up sharply from the late-2008 low.
Since the series' inception in 1997 there has been an 80% correlation
between the level of the ISM nonmanufacturing employment index and the
m/m change in payroll employment in the service-producing plus the
construction industries.</p>
<p>Pricing power continued to firm. At its strongest since
September 2008, the index at 64.7 was up sharply from the 2008 low.
Forty-two percent of respondents reported higher prices while just 2%
reported them lower. At the worst, late in 2008, 41% reported lower
prices. Since its inception ten years ago, there has been a 73%
correlation between the price index and the q/q change in the GDP
services chain price index.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100505g.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100505h.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/@EF/@EF03/@EF03.HTM">ISM
Nonmanufacturing Survey</a></b></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="even">
<td class="firstcol">Composite Index</td>
<td>55.4</td>
<td>55.4</td>
<td>53.0</td>
<td>43.9</td>
<td>46.2</td>
<td>47.3</td>
<td>53.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Business
Activity</td>
<td>60.3</td>
<td>60.0</td>
<td>54.8</td>
<td>45.7</td>
<td>48.0</td>
<td>47.4</td>
<td>56.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; New Orders</td>
<td>58.2</td>
<td>62.3</td>
<td>55.0</td>
<td>47.4</td>
<td>47.9</td>
<td>47.0</td>
<td>54.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Employment</td>
<td>49.5</td>
<td>49.8</td>
<td>48.6</td>
<td>36.9</td>
<td>39.9</td>
<td>43.8</td>
<td>52.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Supplier
Deliveries (NSA)</td>
<td>53.5</td>
<td>49.5</td>
<td>53.5</td>
<td>45.5</td>
<td>49.0</td>
<td>51.1</td>
<td>51.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">Prices Index</td>
<td>64.7</td>
<td>62.9</td>
<td>60.4</td>
<td>40.6</td>
<td>49.4</td>
<td>66.0</td>
<td>63.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<span id="articletitle">Challenger Layoffs Reach Cycle Low</span><br>
<span id="byline">by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
Moeller</a> May 5, 2010</span>
<span id="articletext">
<p></p>
<p><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100505i.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>The outplacement firm Challenger, Grey &amp; Christmas
reported that the level of layoffs fell last month to 38,326. It was
the lowest level since mid-2006 and remained well under the cycle-high
of 241,748 in January of last year. The decline was led by sharply
lower layoffs in the government, computer, energy, entertainment, and
retail industries. An increased level of layoffs occurred in the
construction, financial, health care and utility industries.</p>
<p>Challenger also samples firms' hiring plans. April plans
increased for the second month consecutive month to the highest level
since 2005. They rose in the transportation, consumer goods, health
care and financial industries though most elsewhere they fell.</p>
<p>During the last ten years there has been a 67% (inverse)
correlation between the three-month moving average of announced job
cuts and the three-month change in payroll employment<em>.</em>
Job cut announcements differ from layoffs. Many are achieved through
attrition, early retirement or just never occur.</p>
<p>The Challenger figures are available in Haver's <b>SURVEYS</b>
database.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a ;="" href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S3/@S301/@S301.HTM" style="color: black;"><b>Challenger, Gray &amp;
Christmas</b></a></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>April</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>March</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>February</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>Y/Y</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2009</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2008</strong></th>
<th scope="col"><strong>2007</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Announced Job Cuts</td>
<td>38,326</td>
<td>67,611</td>
<td>42,090</td>
<td>-71.1%</td>
<td>1,288,030</td>
<td>1,223,993</td>
<td>768,264</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Announced Hiring Plans</td>
<td>15,654</td>
<td>13,994</td>
<td>8,300</td>
<td>-42.2%</td>
<td>272,573</td>
<td>118,600</td>
<td>365,583</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

<!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/100504m.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>Pressure on the Euro-Area PPI remained in force in March as
the price index continues to show Yr/Yr drops. Still the 6-month index
is up at a 0.4% rate and the 3-Mo index is up at a 4.1% pace. For
manufacturing the same trends are in play but with accelerated rates of
growth.</p>
<p>Excluding energy prices both France and Germany show
manufactured prices that are transitioning to positive growth rates for
prices over three months or longer. Both series show a gradual
acceleration in prices. Headline prices accelerate for all large EMU/EU
countries in the table. Only Germany is still showing price drops even
over three months for headline prices (excluding construction).</p>
<p>Sector prices also how an acceleration (or reduced
deceleration, if you prefer) is in motion. These trends are also
consistent with the notion that aggregate demand is picking up since at
some point very weak prices indicate not just pricing and cost trends
but demand deficiencies. That part of the weak price picture appears to
be going away. And that is consistent with the better growth metrics we
have been seeing in the Zone recently.</p>
</span>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="7" scope="col"><b>Euro-Area
and UK PPI Trends</b> </th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="2">M/M</td>
<td colspan="4">Saar</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Euro-Area</td>
<td>Mar-10</td>
<td>Feb-10</td>
<td>3-Mo</td>
<td>6-MO</td>
<td>Yr/Yr</td>
<td>Y/Y Yr Ago</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">TotalxConstruct</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.1%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-6.6%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">Capital Gds</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.0%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.7%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Consurmer Gds</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.1%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.8%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate&amp;Cap
Gds</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.1%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-6.5%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">MFG</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">0.0%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-5.2%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-5.2%</td>
<td>-6.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-7.5%</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Gy
ExEnergy</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">0.2%</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">0.4%</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">3.1%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">0.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td style="font-weight: bold;" class="firstcol">France:Tot</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>-<span style="color: red;">0.2%</span></td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-6.6%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Fr
ExF&amp;Energy</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">0.3%</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">0.0%</td>
<td style="font-weight: bold;">1.5%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-3.4%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-6.1%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">UK</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>19.0%</td>
<td>8.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.7%</td>
<td>14.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">Euro-Area
Harmonized
PPI ex construction</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Pressure on the Euro-Area PPI remained in force in March as the price index continues to show Yr/Yr drops. Still the 6-month index is up at a 0.4% rate and the 3-Mo index is up at a 4.1% pace. For manufacturing the same trends are in [...]

EMU PPI Prices Show Downward Pressures Unwinding

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/100504j.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>The Brazilian economy continued strong in the first quarter of
this year. Industrial production in March, published today, was up
2.75% from February and 18.56% from March 2009. Between February and
March production of intermediate goods was up 1.25%, consumer goods,
2.26 and capital goods 2.47%. The year to year increases were,
respectively, 17.64%, 13.32% and 35.80%. The levels of the production
of intermediate, consumer and capital goods, are shown in the first
chart.</p>
<p>In response to the strength of the economy and signs of rising
price pressures, COPOM, the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of
Brazil raised its target rate 75 basis points from 8.75% to 9.50% last
week. The second chart shows the target rate since 2000. While not
exactly low, by comparison with interest rates in the developed
nations, the current level of interest rates in Brazil is a tribute to
the long and relatively successful effort to control the country's
bouts with hyperinflation.</p>
<p>In addition to the current data on the economy of Brazil in
the data base EMERGELA, forecasts of selected features of the economy
are available in the Haver data bases, FX4CASTS and OEFMAJOR. The
former contains five year forecasts of exchange rates, interest rates,
real growth rates, inflation rates and the current account as a percent
of GDP. The latter contains ten year forecasts of many of the usual
items found in the EMERGELA data base under the headings: Financial,
National Income, Prices, Production, Unemployment, International Trade
and Balance of Payments and Population/Demographics. The third chart
shows the ten year annual forecast of industrial production from the
OEFMAJOR data base and the actual 2OO9 industrial production from
EMEREGLA.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100504k.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100504l.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Brazil</th>
<th scope="col"><b>Mar 10&nbsp;</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Feb 10&nbsp;</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Mar 09</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>M/M Chg</b></th>
<th scope="col"><b>Y/Y Chg</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">Industrial
Production (2002=100)</td>
<td>130.65</td>
<td>127.15</td>
<td>110.27</td>
<td>2.75</td>
<td>18.36</td>
<td>116.21</td>
<td>125.31</td>
<td>121.78</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capital Goods</td>
<td>181.32</td>
<td>176.09</td>
<td>133.52</td>
<td>2.97</td>
<td>35.80</td>
<td>150.50</td>
<td>182.32</td>
<td>159.49</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Goods</td>
<td>130.39</td>
<td>127.51</td>
<td>115.06</td>
<td>2.26</td>
<td>13.32</td>
<td>118.68</td>
<td>121.89</td>
<td>119.73</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Intermediate
Goods&nbsp;</td>
<td>122.10</td>
<td>120.68</td>
<td>103.84</td>
<td>1.25</td>
<td>17.64</td>
<td>109.65</td>
<td>119.87</td>
<td>118.34</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The Brazilian economy continued strong in the first quarter of this year. Industrial production in March, published today, was up 2.75% from February and 18.56% from March 2009. Between February and March production of intermediate [...]

Brazil: Current Data And Forecasts

<!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/100504d.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 353px; height: 265px; float: left;" align="left"></p>
<p>Following the recovery already reported for existing home
sales, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) today indicated that
March pending sales of existing single-family homes rose 5.3% from
February. The gain left home sales up more than one-quarter from the
low in January of last year. The latest slightly beat Consensus
expectations for a 4.0% increase.</p>
<p>The m/m performance of home sales varied across the country. A
large monthly increase in the South (28.4% y/y) was accompanied by
small increases in the Midwest (18.4% y/y) and in the West (8.8% y/y).
Sales in the Northeast fell moderately (+27.3% y/y)</p>
<p>Pending home sales figures are analogous to the new home sales
data from the Commerce Department in that they measure existing home
sales when the sales contract is signed, not at the time the sale is
closed. The series dates back to 2001 and the data is available in
Haver's <b>PREALTOR </b>database.</p>
<p>The latest Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending
Practices from the Federal Reserve can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/SnLoanSurvey/201005/fullreport.pdf">here</a>.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100504e.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100504f.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/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Pending Home Sales (2001=100)&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">Total</td>
<td>102.9</td>
<td>97.6</td>
<td>90.2</td>
<td>&nbsp;&nbsp;21.1%</td>
<td>95.1</td>
<td>86.9</td>
<td>95.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Northeast</td>
<td>75.1</td>
<td>77.7</td>
<td>71.3</td>
<td>27.3</td>
<td>76.7</td>
<td>73.0</td>
<td>86.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Midwest</td>
<td>98.9</td>
<td>97.7</td>
<td>80.4</td>
<td>18.4</td>
<td>88.8</td>
<td>80.7</td>
<td>89.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; South</td>
<td>121.2</td>
<td>107.5</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>28.4</td>
<td>98.9</td>
<td>90.3</td>
<td>107.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; West</td>
<td>99.9</td>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>102.9</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>109.9</td>
<td>99.2</td>
<td>92.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Following the recovery already reported for existing home sales, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) today indicated that March pending sales of existing single-family homes rose 5.3% from February. The gain left home sales up [...]

U.S. Pending Home Sales' Recovery Gains Steam

<!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 src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100504a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353"></p>
<p>Forward momentum behind <b>U.S. unit sales of light
vehicles</b> eased during April and sales fell 4.8% to 11.21M
units (SAAR) from 11.78M in March. Nevertheless, sales remained up by
nearly one-quarter from the recession low. April sales fell slightly
short of Consensus expectations for 11.4M. (Seasonal adjustment of
these figures is provided by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis).</p>
<p>Sales of <b>domestically produced vehicles</b>
fell 3.2% last month to 8.50M but gave back just a piece of the 14.0%
March gain. Sales of fuel efficient cars fell 8.3% to 3.78M (+22.6%
y/y) after the 11.8% March increase. Light truck sales went the other
way and rose 1.2% to 4.72M (30.0% y/y). <b>Imported light vehicle</b>
sales also fell 9.5% to 2.70M and gave back most of the March rise.
Sales of imported autos fell 4.8% to 1.83M after the 5.9% March
increase while light truck sales fell 18.0% to 0.88M (+6.5% y/y).</p>
<p>Overall,<b> import's share </b>of the U.S. light
vehicle market fell during April to 24.1% its lowest since early 2008.
The share has been declining erratically from its high of 30.5% in
February '09 and from 27.6% during all of last year. (Imported vehicles
are those produced outside the United States.) Imports' share of the
U.S. car market rose m/m to 32.6% but remained below 34.8% during 2009.
Imports' share of the light truck market also fell to 15.7% but
remained below the 19.6% last year.</p>
<p>The U.S. vehicle sales figures can be found in Haver's<b>
USECON </b>database.</p>
</span>
<img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100504b.jpg" style="width: 312px; height: 265px;"><img alt src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/100504c.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"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED09/@ED0901/@ED0901.HTM%22"><b>Light
Vehicle Sales
(SAAR, Mil. Units)</b></a></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 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>11.21</td>
<td>11.78</td>
<td>10.38</td>
<td>21.4%</td>
<td>10.37</td>
<td>13.22</td>
<td>16.16</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Autos</td>
<td>5.61</td>
<td>6.04</td>
<td>5.49</td>
<td>17.5</td>
<td>5.46</td>
<td>6.76</td>
<td>7.58</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Domestic</td>
<td>3.78</td>
<td>4.12</td>
<td>3.68</td>
<td>22.6</td>
<td>3.56</td>
<td>4.44</td>
<td>5.06</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Imported</td>
<td>1.83</td>
<td>1.92</td>
<td>1.81</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>1.90</td>
<td>2.32</td>
<td>2.52</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Light Trucks</td>
<td>5.60</td>
<td>5.74</td>
<td>4.88</td>
<td>25.7</td>
<td>4.91</td>
<td>6.46</td>
<td>8.60</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Domestic</td>
<td>4.72</td>
<td>4.67</td>
<td>4.03</td>
<td>30.0</td>
<td>3.95</td>
<td>5.28</td>
<td>7.10</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Imported0</td>
<td>0.88</td>
<td>1.07</td>
<td>0.86</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>0.96</td>
<td>1.18</td>
<td>1.47</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

Forward momentum behind U.S. unit sales of light vehicles eased during April and sales fell 4.8% to 11.21M units (SAAR) from 11.78M in March. Nevertheless, sales remained up by nearly one-quarter from the recession low. April sales [...]

U.S. Vehicle Sales Slip From High

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:

Challenger Layoffs Reach Cycle Low

EMU Service Sector Continues To Improve

ADP Report: Job Growth Resumes Led By The Service & Factory Sectors

ADP Report: Job Growth Resumes Led By The Service & Factory Sectors

EMU PPI Prices Show Downward Pressures Unwinding

Brazil: Current Data And Forecasts

U.S. Pending Home Sales' Recovery Gains Steam

U.S. Vehicle Sales Slip From High