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>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080218a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
China and Singapore reported foreign trade figures for
January, today. The largest country in Asia and one of the smallest
both reported increases in their trade balances for the month. In the
year over year comparison, however, China showed an increase of $4115
million and Singapore a decrease of $1,722 million.
The moderation in China's trade surplus that took place at the
end of last year was reversed in January. As a result of an $8,415
million increase in exports and a $4,642 million increase in imports,
the balance on trade rose $3,777 million, to $24,750 million in
January, the second highest on record. Singapore's trade surplus rose
$844 million from December as a result of a $5,227 million increase in
exports and a $4,383 million increase in imports. China's and
Singapore's trade balances are shown in the first chart.
Although Singapore is a tiny city state with a population of
4.4 million compared with China's 1.3 billion, its exports in 2007 were
equal to 25% of China's. (In the mid nineties, Singapore's exports were
equal to 80% of China's, but with the more rapid rise of China's
exports than those of Singapore, that percentage has declined over the
years, as shown in the second chart.) However, foreign trade still
plays a greater role in its economy than it does in China. Its net
exports accounted for 30% of nominal GDP in 2006, compared with 7.5%
for China as can be seen in the third chart.
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080218b.jpg" height="265" width="312">
<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080218c.jpg" height="265" width="312">

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">China&nbsp;
and Singapore Foreign Trade 
&nbsp;(In millions USD)&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 08</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">M/M Chg&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y Chg&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">China Balance of Trade</td>
<td>24750</td>
<td>20973</td>
<td>20635</td>
<td>3777</td>
<td>4115</td>
<td>262201</td>
<td>177476</td>
<td>101999</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Exports&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
<td>117000</td>
<td>108581</td>
<td>92077</td>
<td>8419</td>
<td>24923</td>
<td>1218020</td>
<td>968936</td>
<td>761953</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Imports</td>
<td>92250</td>
<td>87608</td>
<td>71442</td>
<td>4642</td>
<td>20808</td>
<td>955819</td>
<td>791460</td>
<td>659954</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"> Singapore Balance of Trade</td>
<td>2967</td>
<td>2123</td>
<td>4690</td>
<td>844</td>
<td>-1723</td>
<td>36151</td>
<td>33109</td>
<td>29607</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Exports&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
<td>31215</td>
<td>25988</td>
<td>25549</td>
<td>5227</td>
<td>5666</td>
<td>299393</td>
<td>271892</td>
<td>229681</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Imports</td>
<td>28248</td>
<td>23865</td>
<td>20859</td>
<td>4383</td>
<td>7389</td>
<td>263242</td>
<td>38783</td>
<td>200074</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

China and Singapore reported foreign trade figures for January, today. The largest country in Asia and one of the smallest both reported increases in their trade balances for the month. In the year over year comparison, however, China [...]

China and Singapore ---The Big andThe Small---Show Increased Trade Surpluses

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>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080215d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
EMU import growth is slowing but export growth is slowing
faster. As a result EMU has developed its first trade deficit in 16
months. Germany and Finland the two EMU countries with the lowest
inflation rates in the last 10 years continue to post surpluses. As the
lowest inflation countries in this common currency area they are more
price competitive than other EMU nations. 
 

On a seasonally adjusted basis, eight of the 13 countries
belonging to the euro area in December registered a trade deficit, led
by sizeable deficits in The Netherlands (-E8.0 billion) and Spain
(-E5.0 billion). Among the larger EMU countries, Italy (-E2.4 billion)
and France (-E0.6 billion) posted deficits. Red ink was also chalked up
on the trade account by were also posted by Belgium (-E1.8 billion) and
Greece (-E1.5 billion). 
 

The EMU surplus with the US is now shrinking slightly and is
abut E8bln lower than it was a year ago. Exports to the US are down
Yr/Yr and imports are up. It is looking like the weak dollar/strong
euro are having an impact. 
 

Like the US, EMU has a huge deficit with China that rose to
E101bln last year from E82.6bln in 2006, as imports from China&#8217;s
spurted by 18%. This is also a reminder that while corporations
continue to be very up beat on China growth, if the US and Europe
slowdown China&#8217;s exports and growth overall will slow as well. China
may have a slug of domestic infrastructure building in progress, but it
remains highly dependent on trade. 



<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr><th colspan="7" scope="col"> Euro Area: 13-Trade trends for goods</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="2">m/m%</td>
<td colspan="4">% Saar</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Dec-07</td>
<td>Nov-07</td>
<td>3-Mo</td>
<td>6-Mo</td>
<td>12-Mo</td>
<td>12-Mo Ago</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Balance*</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; (2,105)</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 1,965</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 703</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 1,603</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 2,550</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; (685)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol" colspan="7">Exports</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">All Exports</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.5%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-8.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-3.2%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>11.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Food and Drinks</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.8%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>12.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Raw Materials</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-11.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-9.7%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>13.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Other</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.6%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-8.8%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-3.6%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>11.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG</td>
<td style="color: red;">-4.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-17.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-7.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.3%</td>
<td>11.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol" colspan="7">Imports</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">All Imports</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.5%</td>
<td>9.2%</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Food and Drinks</td>
<td style="color: red;">-4.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-27.1%</td>
<td>8.6%</td>
<td>9.0%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Raw Materials</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.3%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.1%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-4.9%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-4.9%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-1.8%</td>
<td>23.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Other</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-0.3%</td>
<td>12.8%</td>
<td>8.9%</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">MFG</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.4%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-2.7%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-20.9%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-9.2%</td>
<td style="color: red;">-4.2%</td>
<td>9.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">*Eur mlns; mo or period average</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

EMU import growth is slowing but export growth is slowing faster. As a result EMU has developed its first trade deficit in 16 months. Germany and Finland the two EMU countries with the lowest inflation rates in the last 10 years [...]

EMU Trade Deficit Emerges

<!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>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080215c.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The Bank of France monthly business survey for January 2008
shows that production has held up but that there is a clear gnawing
away at past trends. The chart at the top shows that the Biz indicators
have been fairly flat recently but viewed as a percentage from a Year
ago there is clear degradation in the index&#8217;s momentum. The sentiment
index itself now sits just below the middle of this two year range in
the 45th percentile. The production outlook is near the top third of
its range in the 64th percentile. Order book reading are in the 60th
percentile and foreign order books have slipped to their 35th
percentile. New orders at 56.9% stand above their midpoint at the
56.9th percentile. 
 

Despite some slippage in the year over year reading most of
the index levels for January are still very near their respective
12-month averages. The Bank of France views the index as a positive in
the outlook for growth in Q1. However the index is clearly losing its
momentum. 
 


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr><th colspan="7" scope="col"> Bank of France Monthly INDUSTRY Survey: SUMMARY</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>12 MO</td>
<td>Since Jan-87</td>
<td>2Yr Percentile</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Jan-08</td>
<td>Dec-07</td>
<td>Nov-07</td>
<td>AVERAGE</td>
<td>Average</td>
<td>rank/range</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">Production-latest mo</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Industry</td>
<td>19.07</td>
<td>-4.08</td>
<td>3.83</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>98.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">Production Outlook</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Industry</td>
<td>16.57</td>
<td>21.79</td>
<td>15.87</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>64.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">Demand</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Overall order books</td>
<td>25.35</td>
<td>25.66</td>
<td>27.43</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>60.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Foreign Orders</td>
<td>10.97</td>
<td>8.95</td>
<td>8.59</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>9</td>
<td style="color: red;">35.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">New Orders</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Industry</td>
<td>12.53</td>
<td>9.55</td>
<td>7.9</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>56.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">Stocks: Finished Goods</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Industry</td>
<td>-1.88</td>
<td>-4.77</td>
<td>-2.87</td>
<td>-3</td>
<td>-2</td>
<td>63.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Capacity Utilization</td>
<td>83.44</td>
<td>80.83</td>
<td>83.69</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>62.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7" class="firstcol">Hiring</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Latest Mo</td>
<td>2.44</td>
<td>-1.55</td>
<td>1.01</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-1</td>
<td>98.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Outlook</td>
<td>-1.7</td>
<td>-0.81</td>
<td>-0.89</td>
<td>-2</td>
<td>-4</td>
<td>74.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Industry Sentiment
Index</td>
<td>106.62</td>
<td>105.8</td>
<td>108.01</td>
<td>108</td>
<td>107</td>
<td>45.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The Bank of France monthly business survey for January 2008 shows that production has held up but that there is a clear gnawing away at past trends. The chart at the top shows that the Biz indicators have been fairly flat recently but [...]

BOF Biz Indicators Softens

Tom Moeller

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080215g.jpg" width="353">
During early February, the University of Michigan&#39;s consumer sentiment index fell a hard 11.2% from the January average to a level of 69.6. A reading of 76 had been expected. It was the largest m/m decline since 2005 and it was to the lowest level since early 1992.
The index of expected business conditions during the next year fell the hardest with a 12.8% m/m decline to its lowest level since the recession of 1990. Expectations for business conditions during the next five years fell 10.2% while expectations for personal finances fell 6.9%.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080215h.jpg" width="353">
The current conditions index more than reversed the January rise with a 9.5% drop. Current conditions for buying large household goods fell out of bed with a 15.1% plunge to the lowest level since 1992. The view of current personal finances fell slightly.
Expectations for inflation during the next twelve months were unchanged at 4.0% and for the next five to ten years expectations ticked up to 3.5%.
Opinions about government policy fell sharply. The 9.0% m/m decline was one of the largest and dropped this measure of opinions to the lowest level since 1993.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.The reading is based on telephone interviews with about 500 households at month-end; the mid-month results are based on about 300 interviews. The summary indexes are in Haver&#39;s USECON database, with details in the proprietary UMSCA database.

<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/@EF/@EF14/@EF1402/@EF1402.HTM">University of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb (Prelim.</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Dec</th>
<th scope="col">Feb&nbsp; y/y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>69.6</td>
<td>78.4</td>
<td>75.5</td>
<td>-23.8% </td>
<td>85.6</td>
<td>87.3</td>
<td>88.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>85.4</td>
<td>94.4</td>
<td>91.0</td>
<td>-20.0%</td>
<td>101.2</td>
<td>105.1</td>
<td>105.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Expectations</td>
<td>59.4</td>
<td>68.1</td>
<td>65.6</td>
<td>-27.1%</td>
<td>75.6</td>
<td>75.9</td>
<td>77.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

During early February, the University of Michigan's consumer sentiment index fell a hard 11.2% from the January average to a level of 69.6. A reading of 76 had been expected. It was the largest m/m decline since 2005 and it was to the [...]

Michigan Consumer Sentiment Dropped Hard

<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>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080215e.jpg" width="353">
Industrial production ticked 0.1% higher last month following an upwardly revised 0.1% rise during December. The latest increase was as expected.
Factory output also rose 0.1% after an upwardly revised 0.2% December increase. The m/m gains have picked up a bit since scattered declines last Summer. As a result the three month growth in output rose to 2.1% (AR) from a low of -4.1% in September. Some of that improvement owes to the high tech sector. Less high tech factory output was unchanged in January and three month growth was 1.1%.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080215f.jpg" width="353">
Production of computers &amp; electronics surged 1.4% (14.4% y/y) after a very much upwardly revised 1.0% December gain. Output of furniture &amp; appliances fell 2.1% and three month dropped to -14.3%. Chemical product output also fell by 0.4%. There was scattered improvement elsewhere. Output of automotive products dropped 1.2% but rose 5.3% on a three month basis. Apparel product output fell 0.1% and three month growth rose to 2.6%.
Output of construction supplies fell again, last month by 1.1% and three month remained negative at -2.6%.
Output of business equipment rose 0.4% with three month growth up to 8.0%. Output of industrial equipment fell 0.4% but three month improved to 2.5%.
Capacity utilization was unchanged for the third month at 81.5%. Utilization in the factory sector slipped a hair to 79.7% from 78.8% where it had been for three months. That ias down from an 80.1% average last year.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION (SA)</th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Industrial production ticked 0.1% higher last month following an upwardly revised 0.1% rise during December. The latest increase was as expected. Factory output also rose 0.1% after an upwardly revised 0.2% December increase. The m/m [...]

U.S. Industrial Production Ticked 0.1% Higher

<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>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080215a.jpg" width="353">
Overall import prices during January rose a strong 1.7%. The rise, which was three times expectations, followed the December respite when temporarily lower oil prices produced a revised 0.2% decline initially reported as no change. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.5% rise in January prices.
Petroleum prices jumped 5.5% after a 1.9% decline to close out last year. Crude petroleum prices surged 4.5% (69.7% y/y) after December&#39;s 1.3% decline. That strength was exceeded by a 10.2% (73.7% y/y) jump in fuel oil prices and an 8.1% (44.2% y/y) rise in other petroleum product prices.
Less petroleum, import prices rose 0.6% after a 0.3% December increase. The latest m/m rise was near the strongest since November 2006. 
 During the last ten years there has been a 66% (negative) correlation between the nominal trade-weighted exchange value of the US dollar vs. major currencies and the y/y change in non oil import prices. The correlation is a reduced 47% against a broader basket of currencies.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080215b.jpg" width="353">
Prices for industrial supplies &amp; materials excluding petroleum surged 2.2% (10.1% y/y) led by strength in paper prices and a 9.7% (21.1% y/y) blowout in chemical prices. The detailed import price series can be found in the Haver USINT database. 
Capital goods import prices fell 0.2% (+0.5% y/y) as prices of computers, peripheral and semiconductors declined again, last month by 1.4% (-5.4% y/y). Less the high tech sector, January capital goods prices rose a modest 0.2% (3.0% y/y) though that rate of gain has accelerated from 2.7% growth last year and 1.4% during 2006.
Prices for imports of nonauto consumer goods rose 0.3% (1.6% y/y) and that y/y rise in prices has been stable since early last year. Apparel prices rose 0.3% (1.9% y/y). These prices had been unchanged or declining through 2004 to 2006. Prices for household goods rose 0.4% (1.5% y/y), a y/y change that has been fairly stable.
Overall export prices surged 1.2% due to a 5.0% (28.9% y/y) rise in agricultural prices. Prices for nonagricultural goods also rose a relatively strong 0.8% (4.8% y/y). 
Some Simple Tests of the Globalization and Inflation Hypothesis from the Federal Reserve Board can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/2007/891/default.htm"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E807/@E807.HTM">Import/Export Prices (NSA)</a></th>
<th scope="col">January</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Import - All Commodities</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>13.7%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Petroleum</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>-1.9%</td>
<td>66.9%</td>
<td>11.5%</td>
<td>20.6%</td>
<td>37.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non-petroleum</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Export- All Commodities</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Overall import prices during January rose a strong 1.7%. The rise, which was three times expectations, followed the December respite when temporarily lower oil prices produced a revised 0.2% decline initially reported as no change. [...]

U.S. Import Price Rise Strong

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080214f.jpg" width="353">
The latest figures from the Commerce Department indicate that total business inventory accumulation in December of 0.6% followed a 0.4% November rise. The three month change in inventories of 4.5% (AR) was down from a 4.9% rate of accumulation during 3Q. The deceleration was not, however, quite as drastic as indicated by the 1.2 percentage point subtraction inventories made from economic growth, indicated in the advance read of 4Q GDP. 
Retail inventories fell 0.1% during December following a revised 0.3% November decline. Inventories of motor vehicles fell 1.6% in December and the three month change swung to -8.2% (AR) from an 18.5% rate of accumulation during 3Q. Inventories excluding autos rose 0.7% in December (3.2% y/y) and the rate of accumulation last quarter nearly tripled that in 3Q. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/080214e.jpg" width="353">
The acceleration was due to building materials which grew 0.3% in December but rose at a 6.8% rate in 4Q versus a 1.4% rate of decline during 3Q. Furniture inventories fell 0.5% (+4.8% y/y) after a 0.9% November drop and the three month change fell to 2.8% (AR) from 10.4% in 3Q. At clothing &amp; accessory stores December inventories rose 0.5% after two months of modest decline. The three month rate held steady last quarter with 3Q at roughly unchanged. Inventories at general merchandise stores rose 0.9% in December and recouped about half of a November decline. For the quarter decumulation held steady with 3Q at a 2.5% rate.
Wholesale inventories jumped 1.1% after a 0.8% November surge. Petroleum inventories skyrocketed 9.2%, more than double the November rise. Less petroleum wholesale inventories rose 0.9% but the three month change fell to 5.3% (AR) from 7.4% during 3Q. During the last ten years there has been a 59% correlation between the annual change in wholesale inventories les petroleum and the change in merchandise imports.
Factory inventories increased 0.8% after a firm 0.7% rise during November. The three month growth in factory inventories accelerated to 6.7% from 2.5% during 3Q. Some of that acceleration owed to petroleum refineries, but excluding petroleum factory inventories still rose 5.8% (AR), nearly triple the 3Q rise.
Business sales fell 0.5% (+6.0% y/y) due to declines in wholesale sales and factory shipments. The decline lifted the ratio of inventories to sales off its lowest level since early 2006.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED06/@ED0601/@ED0601.HTM">Business Inventories</a></th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">November</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Retail</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Retail excl. Autos</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>8.5%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>6.4%</td>
<td>8.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The latest figures from the Commerce Department indicate that total business inventory accumulation in December of 0.6% followed a 0.4% November rise. The three month change in inventories of 4.5% (AR) was down from a 4.9% rate of [...]

U.S. Business Inventory Accumulation Down in 4Q Due To Autos

USD/EUR exchange rate uncoupling from interest rate differential

Widespread downgrading of 2025 GDP outlook

Trade and fiscal policy uncertainty has exploded with the new administration

Much lower US electricity costs gives it a competitive advantage

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

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

US policy gyrations boosting policy uncertainty worldwide

Expected tariff hikes have boosted inflation expectations

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

US economy expected to outperform other major economies in 2025

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

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

Heavy US manufacturing states underperforming while Sun Belt states outperforming

Rising long-term yields a global phenomenon

US financial market concerns shifting from growth to inflation

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

Policy uncertainty has surged since the US national elections.

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

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

Headline US PCE inflation elevated by sticky services prices

US and global equity prices have recently diverged

US leading global upturn in economic surprises

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

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

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

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

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

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

250502A5.jpg

250502B5.jpg

Nonfarm payrolls increased 177,000 (1.2% y/y) during April after rising 185,000 in March, revised from 228,000, and 102,000 in February, revised from 117,000. Expectations had been for a 130,000 rise in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The latest figure left the three-month average change at 155,000 in April, down from 232,000 in January.

Average hourly earnings rose 0.2% during April after unrevised increases of 0.3% in March and 0.2% in February. Earnings growth of 3.8% y/y was below the 5.9% high in March 2022.

The unemployment rate, measured in the household survey, held m/m at an expected 4.2% in April, and compared to 4.1% in February and 4.0% in January. It reached a low of 3.4% in April 2023. The unemployment rate, including employees working part-time for economic reasons plus all marginally-attached workers, eased to 7.8% in April from 7.9% in March.

In the **establishment survey**, private-sector employment rose 167,000 (1.2% y/y) after a 170,000 March increase. Factory sector jobs edged 1,000 lower (-0.7% y/y) following a 3,000 gain. Construction sector employment increased 11,000 (1.7% y/y), after rising 7,000 in March.

Private service-producing sector employment increased 156,000 (1.4% y/y) in April after improving 161,000 in March. Increases varied greatly amongst service sector categories. Private education & health sector employment rose 70,000 (3.4% y/y) last month following a 74,000 March increase. Leisure & hospitality employment rose 24,000 (1.3% y/y) after a 38,000 gain. Trade, transportation & utilities rose 32,000 (0.9% y/y) in April following a 25,000 March increase. Professional & business services employment rose 17,000 (-0.1% y/y) following a 3,000 rise while temporary help employment rose 3,600 (-3.9% y/y) following a 2,700 decline. Financial activities employment improved 14,000 (1.2% y/y) after a 6,000 gain. The number of information sector jobs held steady (-0.4% y/y) last month after falling 2,000 in March.

Government sector payrolls rose 10,000 (1.3% y/y) last month after increasing 15,000 in March. The number of local government jobs increased 13,000 (1.4% y/y) following a 17,000 gain. State government employment rose 6,000 (1.8% y/y) following a 2,000 March increase but federal government payrolls fell 9,000 (-0.3% y/y), the third consecutive monthly decline.

Private-sector average hourly earnings rose 0.2% (3.8% y/y) in April after increasing 0.3% in March. Earnings in the goods-producing sector eased 0.1% (+4.0% y/y) following a 0.6% gain. Earnings in construction rose 0.3% (3.6% y/y), after a 0.2% rise but factory sector earnings declined 0.3% (+4.3% y/y) after surging 0.8% in March. In the private services-sector, earnings rose 0.2% (3.7% y/y) in April for the third straight month. Information sector pay increased 1.0% (5.2% y/y) last month after easing 0.1%, and financial activities earnings rose 0.5% (4.3% y/y) for the second straight month. Trade, transportation & utilities sector pay increased 0.4% (3.4% y/y) after 0.6%. Professional & business sector earnings increased 0.1% (4.4% y/y) after 0.2% in March. Leisure & hospitality earnings held steady (+3.8% y/y) following a 0.6% March increase.

250502C5.jpg

250502D5.jpg

The length of the average workweek held steady at 34.3 hours in April. The workweek in the goods-producing sector eased to 39.8 hours from 40.0 hours. The construction sector average workweek eased to 39.0 hours from 39.3 hours while the factory sector workweek moved lower to 40.0 hours from 40.2. The average workweek in the private service sector held at 33.2 hours. Professional & business service hours fell to 36.3 hours from 36.4 while trade, transportation & utilities hours improved to 34.3 from 34.0 hours. Private education hours rose slightly to 32.8, but leisure & hospitality held steady at 25.5 hours.

In the **household survey**, the unemployment rate held at 4.2% in April as employment rose 436,000 and the size of the labor force increased 518,000. The labor force participation rate edged up to 62.6% last month from 62.5% in March. It remained below the high of 63.3% early in 2020. The rate for teenagers declined to 36.9%. For workers aged 20-24, the rate held steady at 72.1%, up from 71.8% six months earlier. For workers aged 25-54 the rate rose to 83.6%, a five-month high. For individuals 55 and over, the rate improved to 38.4% in April.

The employment/population ratio for all workers in April rose to 60.0%. It remained below the peak reading of 61.1% in February, 2020 just prior to the pandemic.

The employment and earnings data are collected from surveys taken each month during the week containing the 12th day of the month. The labor market data are contained in Haver's **USECON** database. Detailed figures are in the **EMPL** and **LABOR** databases. The expectations figures are in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250502X5.jpg

250502F5.jpg

- Job growth spreads across most sectors.
- Earnings growth trend decelerates.
- Jobless rate holds steady.

U.S. Job Growth Is Firm in April but March Gain Is Lessened

Winnie Tapasanun

250502F32.jpg

250502G32.jpg

Total factory orders rose a slightly less-than-expected 4.3% m/m in March after rises of 0.5% in February and 1.8% in January, data from the U.S. Census Bureau showed. A 4.5% m/m March increase had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The March reading was the third successive monthly rise and the largest since July 2024. The year-on-year rate accelerated to 6.0% in March, the highest since November 2022, from 2.3% in February. Notably, orders for nondefense aircraft & parts soared 139.0% in March following a 7.4% drop in February and a 92.9% surge in January. Factory orders excluding defense rose 4.8% (5.9% y/y), the largest of three straight m/m/ rises, after a 0.4% February increase. Factory orders excluding the transportation sector fell 0.2% (+1.1% y/y), the first m/m fall since August, after rising 0.3% in February, January and December.

Durable goods orders jumped 9.2% (11.9% y/y) in March, the third consecutive m/m gain and the biggest since July 2024, on top of a 0.8% increase in February (matching +9.2% m/m in the advance report on April 24). The March jump reflected m/m orders increases of 27.1% (the largest m/m surge since July 2024; 31.2% y/y) in transportation equipment, 1.1% (4.9% y/y) in primary metals, 0.5% (-0.4% y/y) in furniture & related products, 0.1% (2.5% y/y) in fabricated metal products, and 0.1% (0.9% y/y) in machinery. To the downside, durable goods orders for computers & electronic products (-1.3%; +2.7% y/y) and electrical equipment, appliances & components (-1.0%; +4.2% y/y) declined m/m in March.

Nondurable goods orders, which equal nondurable goods shipments, fell 0.3% (+0.4% y/y) in March, the first m/m fall since September, after a 0.1% uptick in February. The March fall reflected m/m drops of 2.4% (-9.3% y/y) in petroleum & coal products and 0.9% (-1.2% y/y) in apparel. To the upside, the following nondurable goods shipments rose m/m in March: leather & allied products (1.5%; 8.6% y/y), beverage & tobacco products (0.7%; 5.8% y/y), paper products (0.6%; 2.3% y/y), printing (0.3%; 3.8% y/y), textile mills (0.3%; 0.8% y/y), chemical products (0.2%; 5.4% y/y), plastics & rubber products (0.2%; 0.4% y/y), food products (0.1%; 1.8% y/y), and textile products (0.1%; 2.1% y/y).

Total shipments slipped 0.1% (+2.0% y/y) in March, the first m/m easing since October, after a 0.7% increase in February. Excluding transportation, shipments were virtually unchanged m/m (+1.1% y/y) in March following six straight m/m gains. Shipments of durable goods industries inched up 0.1% (3.8% y/y) in March, the smallest of four consecutive m/m increases, after a 1.3% advance in February. This reflected m/m durable goods shipments rises of 1.2% (5.6% y/y) in primary metals, 0.9% (0.1% y/y) in furniture & related products, 0.8% (-0.2% y/y) in nonmetallic mineral products, 0.4% (0.0% y/y) in machinery, 0.3% (1.8% y/y) in fabricated metal products, 0.2% (4.5% y/y) in computers & electronic products, 0.2% (-2.1% y/y) in wood products, and 0.1% (3.0% y/y) in electrical equipment, appliances & components. In contrast, durable goods shipments for transportation equipment (-0.5%; +7.3% y/y) and miscellaneous durable goods (-0.1%; +2.9% y/y) fell m/m in March following three successive m/m increases.

Unfilled orders rose 2.0% (2.3% y/y) in March, up for the eighth month in nine, after a 0.1% uptick in February. Excluding transportation, unfilled orders dipped 0.1% (+0.7% y/y) in March, the first m/m easing since May 2024, after holding steady in February. Backlogs of durable goods rose 2.0% (2.3% y/y) in March, reflecting m/m rises of 3.1% (3.1% y/y) in transportation equipment and 0.2% (2.4% y/y) in electrical equipment, appliances & components.

Inventories edged up 0.1% (0.9% y/y) in March, the fifth straight m/m increase, after rising at the same pace in the prior two months. Excluding transportation, inventories were up 0.1% (0.5% y/y) in March, the fifth consecutive m/m rise. Durable goods inventories ticked up 0.1% (1.0% y/y) in March after holding steady in February and January; nondurable goods inventories edged up 0.1% (0.8% y/y), the fifth successive m/m increase.

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

250502H32.jpg

250502I32.jpg

- March manufacturers’ new orders +4.3% m/m; +6.0% y/y, highest since Nov. ’22.
- Durable goods orders (+9.2%) jump m/m, while nondurable goods orders (-0.3%) and shipments (-0.1%) decline m/m.
- Transportation equipt. orders +27.1% m/m, w/ a 139.0% m/m surge in nondefense aircraft & parts orders.
- Unfilled orders +2.0%, the eighth m/m rise in nine months.
- Inventories +0.1%, the fifth consecutive m/m increase.

U.S. Factory Orders Increase for the Third Straight Month in March

250502E.jpg

The global manufacturing data showed broad weakening in April as conditions weakened across more than half of the contributing early reporters in the S&P survey of manufacturing. Of the 18 early reporting countries, more than half of them showed deceleration over six months and 12 months. Over three months, only 8 of 18 showed deterioration and that's about as good as it got in this report. In the current month, month-to-month changes showed more than half of the survey contributors showing weaker results than the month before. In the S&P framework, manufacturing improved month-to-month for the U.S.; however, looking at sequential averages for the U.S., U.K., European monetary union, Canada, and Japan, we see a steady weakening and results over 12 months, over six months versus 12 months, and for three months versus 6 months. The highly developed countries are not doing particularly well.

Asian economies are also showing slight deterioration but doing a little better than the developed countries in general.

Only five of the 18 reporting countries have queue percentile standings in their data back to January 2021 that are above their medians. Readings at or above the 50% mark are at or above the median standing. Canada is showing the weakest manufacturing result on record over this span, in terms of its queue percentile standing which is at 0 in the current month.

I showed the graphic for the Baltic dry goods index in this report rather than statistics on the manufacturing PMI data because the Baltic data, which reflect shipping volume for dry goods - that is excluding things like oil - is weak but it's only in the neighborhood where it's been for some time. There has been a great deal of talk about how tariffs may have impacted trade flows, expected trade flows, shipping, shipping rates, and the like. However, according to the Baltic dry goods index, there isn't much evidence that this is occurring right now and affecting the current data. That may still lie ahead but for now it's not baked in the cake.

250502.jpg

Globally Manufacturing Weakens

Andrew Cates

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

250501Z1.jpg

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

250501Z2.jpg

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

250501Z3.jpg

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

250501Z4.jpg

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

250501Z5.jpg

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

250501Z6.jpg

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

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

Charts of the Week: Tariff Truce, Tenuous Trust

250501F20.jpg

250501G20.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

250501H20.jpg

250501I20.jpg

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

Economy in Brief: February 2008

Jump to:

China and Singapore ---The Big andThe Small---Show Increased Trade Surpluses

EMU Trade Deficit Emerges

BOF Biz Indicators Softens

Michigan Consumer Sentiment Dropped Hard

U.S. Industrial Production Ticked 0.1% Higher

U.S. Import Price Rise Strong

Michigan Consumer Sentiment Dropped Hard

U.S. Business Inventory Accumulation Down in 4Q Due To Autos