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/060316h.jpg" width="353">
The March Philadelphia Fed Index of General Business Conditions in the manufacturing sector gave back 3.1 points of the 12.1 point improvement last month. The decline to 12.3 compared to Consensus expectations for a lesser decline to 14.
During the last ten years there has been a 68% correlation between the level of the Philadelphia Fed Business Conditions Index and three month growth in factory sector industrial production. There has been a 50% correlation with q/q growth in real GDP.
Declines in the sub indexes were broad based although new orders rose sharply to the highest level since October 2004 and shipments rose moderately. Unfilled orders fell sharply as did delivery times. The index covering the number of employees halved and fell to 5.4. During the last ten years there has been a 64% correlation between the employment index and the three month growth in factory payrolls.
The business conditions index reflects a separate survey question, not the sub indexes.
The separate index of expected business conditions in six months halved and fell to 14.6. Expectations for employment also moved moderately lower.
The prices paid index fell sharply though the index of future prices fell only moderately. During the last ten years there has been a 75% correlation between the prices paid index and the three month growth in the intermediate goods PPI. The correlation with the finished goods PPI has been 50% and with the CPI it&#39;s been 43%.
The latest Business Outlook survey from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank can be found <a href="http://www.phil.frb.org/files/bos/bos0306.html">here</a>.
Global Imbalances or Bad Accounting? The Missing Dark Matter in the Wealth of Nations, analysis from the NBER and the Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government is available <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=878096"> 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/SURVEYS/@S5/@S504/@S504.HTM">Philadelphia Fed Business Outlook</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Mar &#39;05</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">General Activity Index</td>
<td>12.3</td>
<td>15.4</td>
<td>14.2</td>
<td>12.4</td>
<td>28.0</td>
<td>10.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Prices Paid Index</td>
<td>17.2</td>
<td>30.5</td>
<td>28.6</td>
<td>43.5</td>
<td>51.2</td>
<td>16.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
CPI Eased: Energy Prices Lower 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 16, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060316a.jpg" width="353">
The February consumer price index (CPI-U) rose an expected 0.1% on the heels of the 0.7% spurt during January.
Price declines for most fuels dragged energy prices lower by 1.2%. Natural gas prices fell 4.5% (+26.8% y/y) and fuel oil prices dropped for the fifth straight month, down 2.8% (+24.2% y/y). Gasoline prices fell 1.0% (20.6% y/y) and dented the 6.4% January surge but in March, gasoline prices moved higher to $2.37 per gallon last week from the $2.28 February average.
Prices less food &amp; energy rose a modest 0.1% that was less than the 0.2% Consensus expectation. Prices for core goods fell 0.1% due to a 1.0% (-1.7% y/y) decline in apparel prices and no change (0.5% y/y) in the prices for household furnishings &amp; operation. Medical care commodity prices rose 0.3% (3.8% y/y).
A 0.3% increase in core services prices reflected a 0.4% (2.6% y/y) increase in shelter prices and a 0.5% (4.1% y/y) increase in prices for medical care services prices. School tuition &amp; fees rose 0.3% (6.2% y/y) while public transportation prices fell 0.2% (+7.5% y/y).
Click <a href="Owners.pdf"> here</a> for a discussion of Owners Equivalent Rent and the Cost of Living by Federal Reserve Bank of New York economist Charles Steindel. <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">This paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Business Economics (<a href="http://www.nabe.com/">www.nabe.com</a>) and later published in the January 2006 issue of the NABE journal Business Economics.
The gain in the chained CPI, which adjusts for shifts in the mix of consumer purchases, eased to 0.2% but less food &amp; energy prices rose 0.4%.
The Federal Reserve Board&#39;s latest Beige Book can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC/BeigeBook/2006/20060315/"> 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/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM">Consumer Price Index</a> </th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total&nbsp;</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Services less Energy</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Energy</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
<td>20.1%</td>
<td>16.9%</td>
<td>10.9%</td>
<td>12.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Food</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80113/@E80113.HTM">Chained CPI: Total (NSA)</a> </td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Housing Starts Decline Mostly Reflected Multi-Family  
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 16, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060316b.jpg" width="353">
Housing starts during February reversed roughly half of the prior month&#39;s upwardly revised rise and fell 7.9% m/m to 2.120M units. More normal Winter temperatures returned last month after the record warmth of January. Consensus expectations had been for a sharper decline to 2.03M starts.
The reason for the relatively moderate decline last month was that single-family starts fell just 2.3% to 1.800M from the record high in January. The two month average of 1.822M starts was still a record height. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060316c.jpg" width="353">
A 30.4% m/m decline in multi family starts more than reversed the January surge.
Building permits also fell moderately reversing about half of February&#39;s unrevised gain with a 3.2% decline. Single family permits, however, fell hard. A 3.0% (+0.9% y/y) decline dropped single family permits to the lowest level since last May.
Single family housing starts in the Northeast fell 20.1% (-12.9% y/y) and in the Midwest starts dropped 9.2% (-15.9% y/y). Single family starts in the South fell 3.6% (+6.0% y/y) but out West starts recovered 13.3% (3.8% y/y).

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E9/@E901/@E90101/@E90101.HTM">Housing Starts (000s, AR)</a> </th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>2,120</td>
<td>2,303</td>
<td>-4.8%</td>
<td>2,072</td>
<td>1,950</td>
<td>1,854</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Single-family</td>
<td>1,800</td>
<td>1,843</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>1,716</td>
<td>1,604</td>
<td>1,505</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Multi-family</td>
<td>320</td>
<td>460</td>
<td>-23.8%</td>
<td>355</td>
<td>345</td>
<td>349</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Building Permits</td>
<td>2,145</td>
<td>2,216</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2,122</td>
<td>2,058</td>
<td>1,8 88</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Initial Claims for Jobless Insurance Higher Again 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 16, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060316d.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose for the third consecutive week. Last week&#39;s gain of 5,000 to 309,000 followed a little revised 9,000 increase the prior period and it was to the highest level this year. Consensus expectations had been for 300,000 claims.
During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 75% correlation between the level of initial jobless insurance claims and the m/m change in payroll employment.
The four-week moving average of initial claims increased to 296,500 (-8.0% y/y), its highest level since mid-January.
Continuing unemployment insurance claims fell 49,000 to 2.445M, a five year low, and reversed all of a downwardly revised 17,000 gain the prior week.
The insured rate of unemployment was stable at 1.9% for the fifth week.
The Trend Growth Rate of Employment: Past, Present and Future from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City can be found <a href="http://www.kansascityfed.org/PUBLICAT/ECONREV/PDF/1q06clar.pdf"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">03/11/06</th>
<th scope="col">03/04/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>309</td>
<td>304</td>
<td>-6.1%</td>
<td>332</td>
<td>343</td>
<td>402</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>2,445</td>
<td>-7.6%</td>
<td>2,663</td>
<td>2,924</td>
<td>3,532</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
France, Netherlands & Slovenia See Better Labor Market Conditions in Late 2005 and Early 2006 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> March 16, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060316e.jpg" width="353">
Yesterday here, we talked about the persistent sluggishness of employment in the UK. A few weeks ago, we had a similar discussion about Germany. While these two large European economies are seeing their labor markets struggle, those of some other countries are doing comparatively better.
Even in France, where riots in early November highlighted the plight of one specific segment of the labor force, employment is actually rising. The increase is not large, but in Q4, there were 20,500 new jobs in manufacturing and services industries, bringing their total to 15.489 million, a new high. As in many Western countries, the gains are all in the service sector and for France, especially in consulting and other business services. Unemployment in France has also continued to decrease, with the 9.6% rate in December and January the lowest since January 2003. The sensitive youth age range, under 25, saw an uptick in January to 22.2%, but this remains below the high last May of 22.8%.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060316f.jpg" width="353">
In the Netherlands, as seen in the graph, employment fell sharply in 2003, much more so than in France, but it bounced back, particularly over the past six months. While not reaching a new peak, Dutch employment has regained more than half of its 184,000 drop between February 2003 and February 2005. Unemployment in the Netherlands is falling, with the rate down to 6.1% in January from a peak of 6.7% in February 2005. By age group, progress here is actually most noticeable in the younger segments. Unemployment for those under 25 was 12.1%, compared to 13.4% early in 2005 and as high as 14.5% in late 2004. Adult workers under 45 face only 5.6% unemployment, down slightly over the past year. Older workers, ages 45-64, also have unemployment rates in the mid-5% range, but they have remained stubbornly at that level all through the past 15 months.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060316g.jpg" width="353">
In one of the smaller European nations, Slovenia, jobs have increased modestly over the last year. In January, employment was 816,600, up from an average of 813,100 for all of last year and 809,700 for January a year ago. Unemployment increased slightly this January, but it has undergone a secular decline throughout almost the entirety of Slovenia&#39;s period of independence, carrying the rate down to just over 10% from 15% in late 1992. [Note that the data collection method changed at the beginning of 2005, accounting for the sudden jump in employment then. The labor force increased by a commensurate amount so the unemployment rate was not affected.]
Thus, labor markets can behave differently even in neighboring regions and among differing demographic groups within the same region. And as we see here, big economies don&#39;t necessarily have advantages over small ones in the ability to provide job opportunities for everyone. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"></th>
<th scope="col"></th>
<th scope="col">Q4 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Year Ago</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">France:&nbsp; &nbsp; Mfg &amp; Services Employees (Mil.)</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>15.49</td>
<td>15.47</td>
<td>15.44</td>
<td>15.47</td>
<td>15.42</td>
<td>15.43</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>5.13</td>
<td>5.14</td>
<td>5.18</td>
<td>5.15</td>
<td>5.20</td>
<td>5.28</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Services</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>10.35</td>
<td>10.33</td>
<td>10.26</td>
<td>10.32</td>
<td>10.22</td>
<td>10.15</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td>Jan 2006</td>
<td>Dec 2005</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>Year Ago</td>
<td>2005</td>
<td>2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>10.1</td>
<td>9.9</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td>9.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Netherlands: Total Employment*</td>
<td>6.99</td>
<td>6.97</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>6.90</td>
<td>6.91</td>
<td>6.92</td>
<td>7.00</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
<td>6.1</td>
<td>6.2</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>6.7</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>6.5</td>
<td>5.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Slovenia: Employment (Thous.)</td>
<td>816.6</td>
<td>816.2</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>809.7</td>
<td>813.1</td>
<td>782.2</td>
<td>777.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
<td>10.2</td>
<td>10.3</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>10.1</td>
<td>10.1</td>
<td>10.6</td>
<td>11.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The March Philadelphia Fed Index of General Business Conditions in the manufacturing sector gave back 3.1 points of the 12.1 point improvement last month. The decline to 12.3 compared to Consensus expectations for a lesser decline to [...]

Philadelphia Fed Business Activity Index Off

Carol Stone, CBE

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060315h.jpg" width="353">
Since we last reported on the UK labor market here in mid-January, conditions have continued to soften. Measured by 3-month centered moving averages, employment and unemployment have both deteriorated. In the December period (November, December and January), employment was off 7,000 from three months before (the usual UK comparison), following a 56,000 decline in the November period and 22,000 in October.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060315i.jpg" width="353"> The unemployment rate reached 5.1% in the November period and edged lower in December to 5.0%. It had averaged 4.8% for all of 2005.
More current data on claims for unemployment benefits and job vacancies point toward further possible labor market softening. The so-called &quot;claimant count&quot; shows that 919,700 people were collecting benefits in February, up from 901,900 in December and an average of 861,100 for 2005. The number of job vacancies is decreasing, pointing to fewer new opportunities for work: there were 610,700 reported vacancies in February, down from 627,900 in December and 626,700 for all of 2005. Other indicators of less-than-full participation in employment are also showing negative patterns. The number of employees who are working part-time because they can&#39;t find full-time work is rising. And the number of temporary workers who are working &quot;temp&quot; because they can&#39;t find permanent work has been ratcheting upward for several months.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060315j.jpg" width="353">
Finally, as might be expected from a pattern of diminished demand for labor, workers&#39; earnings are remaining on soft side. The headline series* for the average earnings index was 3.5% in January, flat with December and down from 4.0% in 2005 and 4.5% in 2004. 

<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/UK/@U7/@U7.HTM">United Kingdom</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 2005</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Employment (3Mo Avg, SA, Thous)</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>28,806</td>
<td>28,769</td>
<td>28,743</td>
<td>28,465</td>
<td>28,183</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Chg from 1 &amp; 3 Months Ago</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>+37/-7</td>
<td>+5/-56</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate &nbsp;(3Mo Avg, SA, %)</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>5.1</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>5.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Claimant Count (Monthly, Thous)</td>
<td>919.7</td>
<td>905.1</td>
<td>906.2</td>
<td>901.9</td>
<td>861.1</td>
<td>853.6</td>
<td>933.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Vacancies (Monthly, Thous)</td>
<td>610.7</td>
<td>612.9</td>
<td>627.9</td>
<td>607.6</td>
<td>626.7</td>
<td>635.5</td>
<td>587.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Average Earnings Index inc Bonus (Headline Rate*)</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>4.5</td>
<td>3.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Since we last reported on the UK labor market here in mid-January, conditions have continued to soften. Measured by 3-month centered moving averages, employment and unemployment have both deteriorated. In the December period [...]

UK Employment Conditions Continue To Erode

<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/060315f.jpg" width="353">
The total number of mortgage applications slipped 0.2% following a 0.7% increase the prior week. In March, applications are 1.9% below the February average which fell 6.3% m/m.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage jumped for the second week. The nine basis point rise in the effective rate on a 15-year mortgage to 6.36% was to the highest level since mid-2002. The ten basis point rise in the effective rate on a 30 year mortgage pulled it to 6.65%. Interest rates on 15 and 30 year mortgages are closely correlated (&gt;90%) with the rate on 10 year Treasury securities and during the last ten years there has been a (negative) 82% correlation between purchase applications and the effective rate on a 30-Year mortgage.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060315g.jpg" width="353">
Purchase applications rose for the first week in three, by 1.0%. The March level is down 1.4% from the February average.
During the last ten years there has been a 50% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing single family home sales.
Applications to refinance retraced most of the prior week&#39;s rise and fell 1.9%. The March level is 2.1% below the February average which fell 2.0% from January.
The Mortgage Bankers Association surveys between 20 to 35 of the top lenders in the U.S. housing industry to derive its refinance, purchase and market indexes. The weekly survey accounts for more than 40% of all applications processed each week by mortgage lenders. Visit the Mortgage Bankers Association site <a href="http://www.mbaa.org">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/SURVEYW/@S5/@S5.HTM">MBA Mortgage Applications (3/16/90=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">03/10/06</th>
<th scope="col">03/03/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>574.4</td>
<td>575.6</td>
<td>-21.1%</td>
<td>708.6</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>403.0</td>
<td>399.0</td>
<td>-12.9%</td>
<td>470.9</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>1,583.6</td>
<td>1,614.4</td>
<td>-30.2%</td>
<td>2,092.3</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The total number of mortgage applications slipped 0.2% following a 0.7% increase the prior week. In March, applications are 1.9% below the February average which fell 6.3% m/m. The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year [...]

Mortgage Applications Meander, Interest Rates Jump Further

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060315e.jpg" width="353">
The Empire State Index of General Business Conditions for March, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, surged to 31.16 from a revised 21.02 last month. Consensus expectations for the factory sector index had been for a decline to 18.8.
Since the series&#39; inception in 2001 there has been a 76% correlation between the index level and the three month change in factory sector production.
Most of the index components improved in March. The employment index jumped to 21.75, the highest level since the middle of last year while the shipments index similarly surged. New orders also improved and the inventory index jumped to the highest level since late 2001.
Pricing pressure eased, indicated by sharp drop in the index to the lowest level since last August.
Like the Philadelphia Fed Index of General Business Conditions, the Empire State Business Conditions Index reflects answers to an independent survey question; it is not a weighted combination of the components.
The index of expectations for business conditions in six months rose very slightly m/m and expectations for future capital spending fell.
The Empire State Manufacturing Survey is a monthly survey of manufacturers in New York State conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Participants from across the state in a variety of industries respond to a questionnaire and report the change in a variety of indicators from the previous month. Respondents also state the likely direction of these same indicators six months ahead. April 2002 is the first report, although survey data date back to July 2001.
For more on the Empire State Manufacturing Survey, including methodologies and the latest report, click <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/regional_economy/empiresurvey_overview.html">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S5/@S511/@S511.HTM">Empire State Manufacturing Survey</a> </th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Mar &#39;05 </th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">General Business Conditions (diffusion index)</td>
<td>31.16</td>
<td>21.02</td>
<td>19.30</td>
<td>15.56</td>
<td>28.79</td>
<td>15.98</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Empire State Index of General Business Conditions for March, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, surged to 31.16 from a revised 21.02 last month. Consensus expectations for the factory sector index had been for a [...]

Empire State Index Surged

<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/060315c.jpg" width="353">
The February index of small business optimism from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) reversed all the prior month&#39;s decline and rose 0.4%. The index has moved generally sideways since last Fall.
The percentage with one or more job openings held at the high level of 26% reached in January. That is the highest since 2001.In addition, the percentage of firms planning to increase employment at 16% was down just one point from January but remained higher than the averages of the last five years.
The percent planning to raise capital expenditures rose to 35%, the highest level in nearly a year. Despite these plans the percent of firms expecting the economy to improve slid to just 3%, the lowest level since 2001. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060315d.jpg" width="353">
During the last ten years there has been a 70% correlation between the level of the NFIB index and the two quarter change in real GDP.
The percentage of firms planning to raise average selling prices slipped to 27%, the same as during all of last year but the percentage of firms actually raising average selling prices rose to 23%, a bit higher than last year. During the last ten years there has been a 60% correlation between the change in the producer price index and the level of the NFIB price index.
About 24 million businesses exist in the United States. Small business creates 80% of all new jobs in America.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S7/@S7.HTM">Nat&#39;l Federation of Independent Business</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Small Business Optimism Index (1986=100)</td>
<td>101.5</td>
<td>101.1</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>101.6</td>
<td>104.6</td>
<td>101.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The February index of small business optimism from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) reversed all the prior month's decline and rose 0.4%. The index has moved generally sideways since last Fall. The percentage [...]

Small Business Optimism Up, Hiring Firm

<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/060315a.jpg" width="353">
One month U.S. import prices move up, the next month they&#39;re down. And sometimes, they remain unchanged. All three possibilities have been in evidence since last November. The trend is up but the rate of increase appears to have topped, but for how long? Last month, total import prices fell an expected 0.5% after a revised 1.4% jump during January.
Nonpetroleum import prices dropped 0.5% during February and reversed the upwardly revised 0.3% January rise. The fall reflected lower prices of foods, feeds and beverages where a 1.7% decline (+4.1% y/y) reversed much of the prior two months&#39; strength. Industrial materials prices less petroleum also fell a sharp 2.2% (+9.9% y/y) due to a 19.2% m/m decline in natural gas prices (+40.8% y/y). <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060315b.jpg" width="353">
Prices for nonauto consumer goods were unchanged (-0.4% y/y) for the second month in the last three but capital goods prices rose 0.2% (-1.3% y/y). Excluding a 0.1% decline in computer prices (-6.4% y/y), capital goods prices rose 0.4% (1.0% y/y). Motor vehicle &amp; parts prices rose 0.1% (0.4% y/y).
Petroleum prices also reversed course last month and fell 0.7% after a 6.9% spike during January. Crude oil prices dipped 0.9% (39.95 y/y) after an 8.7% spike during January. So far in March the price of Brent Crude has averaged $60.80 versus $60.19 per bbl. during February.
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 lower 47% against a broader basket of currencies and a lower 57% against the real value of the dollar.
Export prices were unchanged m/m and the 2.6% y/y gain was below the increases of 2004 and 2005.

<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">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Import - All Commodities</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Petroleum</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>6.9%</td>
<td>40.8%</td>
<td>37.6%</td>
<td>30.5%</td>
<td>21.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non-petroleum</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Export - All Commodities</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

One month U.S. import prices move up, the next month they're down. And sometimes, they remain unchanged. All three possibilities have been in evidence since last November. The trend is up but the rate of increase appears to have [...]

Import Prices Back Down

<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/060315a.jpg" width="353">
One month U.S. import prices move up, the next month they&#39;re down. And sometimes, they remain unchanged. All three possibilities have been in evidence since last November. The trend is up but the rate of increase appears to have topped, but for how long? Last month, total import prices fell an expected 0.5% after a revised 1.4% jump during January.
Nonpetroleum import prices dropped 0.5% during February and reversed the upwardly revised 0.3% January rise. The fall reflected lower prices of foods, feeds and beverages where a 1.7% decline (+4.1% y/y) reversed much of the prior two months&#39; strength. Industrial materials prices less petroleum also fell a sharp 2.2% (+9.9% y/y) due to a 19.2% m/m decline in natural gas prices (+40.8% y/y). <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060315b.jpg" width="353">
Prices for nonauto consumer goods were unchanged (-0.4% y/y) for the second month in the last three but capital goods prices rose 0.2% (-1.3% y/y). Excluding a 0.1% decline in computer prices (-6.4% y/y), capital goods prices rose 0.4% (1.0% y/y). Motor vehicle &amp; parts prices rose 0.1% (0.4% y/y).
Petroleum prices also reversed course last month and fell 0.7% after a 6.9% spike during January. Crude oil prices dipped 0.9% (39.95 y/y) after an 8.7% spike during January. So far in March the price of Brent Crude has averaged $60.80 versus $60.19 per bbl. during February.
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 lower 47% against a broader basket of currencies and a lower 57% against the real value of the dollar.
Export prices were unchanged m/m and the 2.6% y/y gain was below the increases of 2004 and 2005.

<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">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Import - All Commodities</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Petroleum</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>6.9%</td>
<td>40.8%</td>
<td>37.6%</td>
<td>30.5%</td>
<td>21.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non-petroleum</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Export - All Commodities</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Small Business Optimism Up, Hiring Firm 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 15, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060315c.jpg" width="353">
The February index of small business optimism from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) reversed all the prior month&#39;s decline and rose 0.4%. The index has moved generally sideways since last Fall.
The percentage with one or more job openings held at the high level of 26% reached in January. That is the highest since 2001.In addition, the percentage of firms planning to increase employment at 16% was down just one point from January but remained higher than the averages of the last five years.
The percent planning to raise capital expenditures rose to 35%, the highest level in nearly a year. Despite these plans the percent of firms expecting the economy to improve slid to just 3%, the lowest level since 2001. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060315d.jpg" width="353">
During the last ten years there has been a 70% correlation between the level of the NFIB index and the two quarter change in real GDP.
The percentage of firms planning to raise average selling prices slipped to 27%, the same as during all of last year but the percentage of firms actually raising average selling prices rose to 23%, a bit higher than last year. During the last ten years there has been a 60% correlation between the change in the producer price index and the level of the NFIB price index.
About 24 million businesses exist in the United States. Small business creates 80% of all new jobs in America.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S7/@S7.HTM">Nat&#39;l Federation of Independent Business</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Small Business Optimism Index (1986=100)</td>
<td>101.5</td>
<td>101.1</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>101.6</td>
<td>104.6</td>
<td>101.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Empire State Index Surged 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 15, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060315e.jpg" width="353">
The Empire State Index of General Business Conditions for March, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, surged to 31.16 from a revised 21.02 last month. Consensus expectations for the factory sector index had been for a decline to 18.8.
Since the series&#39; inception in 2001 there has been a 76% correlation between the index level and the three month change in factory sector production.
Most of the index components improved in March. The employment index jumped to 21.75, the highest level since the middle of last year while the shipments index similarly surged. New orders also improved and the inventory index jumped to the highest level since late 2001.
Pricing pressure eased, indicated by sharp drop in the index to the lowest level since last August.
Like the Philadelphia Fed Index of General Business Conditions, the Empire State Business Conditions Index reflects answers to an independent survey question; it is not a weighted combination of the components.
The index of expectations for business conditions in six months rose very slightly m/m and expectations for future capital spending fell.
The Empire State Manufacturing Survey is a monthly survey of manufacturers in New York State conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Participants from across the state in a variety of industries respond to a questionnaire and report the change in a variety of indicators from the previous month. Respondents also state the likely direction of these same indicators six months ahead. April 2002 is the first report, although survey data date back to July 2001.
For more on the Empire State Manufacturing Survey, including methodologies and the latest report, click <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/regional_economy/empiresurvey_overview.html">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">

</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S5/@S511/@S511.HTM">Empire State Manufacturing Survey</a> </th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Mar &#39;05 </th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">General Business Conditions (diffusion index)</td>
<td>31.16</td>
<td>21.02</td>
<td>19.30</td>
<td>15.56</td>
<td>28.79</td>
<td>15.98</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Mortgage Applications Meander, Interest Rates Jump Further 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> March 15, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060315f.jpg" width="353">
The total number of mortgage applications slipped 0.2% following a 0.7% increase the prior week. In March, applications are 1.9% below the February average which fell 6.3% m/m.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage jumped for the second week. The nine basis point rise in the effective rate on a 15-year mortgage to 6.36% was to the highest level since mid-2002. The ten basis point rise in the effective rate on a 30 year mortgage pulled it to 6.65%. Interest rates on 15 and 30 year mortgages are closely correlated (&gt;90%) with the rate on 10 year Treasury securities and during the last ten years there has been a (negative) 82% correlation between purchase applications and the effective rate on a 30-Year mortgage.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060315g.jpg" width="353">
Purchase applications rose for the first week in three, by 1.0%. The March level is down 1.4% from the February average.
During the last ten years there has been a 50% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing single family home sales.
Applications to refinance retraced most of the prior week&#39;s rise and fell 1.9%. The March level is 2.1% below the February average which fell 2.0% from January.
The Mortgage Bankers Association surveys between 20 to 35 of the top lenders in the U.S. housing industry to derive its refinance, purchase and market indexes. The weekly survey accounts for more than 40% of all applications processed each week by mortgage lenders. Visit the Mortgage Bankers Association site <a href="http://www.mbaa.org">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/SURVEYW/@S5/@S5.HTM">MBA Mortgage Applications (3/16/90=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">03/10/06</th>
<th scope="col">03/03/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>574.4</td>
<td>575.6</td>
<td>-21.1%</td>
<td>708.6</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>403.0</td>
<td>399.0</td>
<td>-12.9%</td>
<td>470.9</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>1,583.6</td>
<td>1,614.4</td>
<td>-30.2%</td>
<td>2,092.3</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
UK Employment Conditions Continue To Erode 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> March 15, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060315h.jpg" width="353">
Since we last reported on the UK labor market here in mid-January, conditions have continued to soften. Measured by 3-month centered moving averages, employment and unemployment have both deteriorated. In the December period (November, December and January), employment was off 7,000 from three months before (the usual UK comparison), following a 56,000 decline in the November period and 22,000 in October.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060315i.jpg" width="353"> The unemployment rate reached 5.1% in the November period and edged lower in December to 5.0%. It had averaged 4.8% for all of 2005.
More current data on claims for unemployment benefits and job vacancies point toward further possible labor market softening. The so-called &quot;claimant count&quot; shows that 919,700 people were collecting benefits in February, up from 901,900 in December and an average of 861,100 for 2005. The number of job vacancies is decreasing, pointing to fewer new opportunities for work: there were 610,700 reported vacancies in February, down from 627,900 in December and 626,700 for all of 2005. Other indicators of less-than-full participation in employment are also showing negative patterns. The number of employees who are working part-time because they can&#39;t find full-time work is rising. And the number of temporary workers who are working &quot;temp&quot; because they can&#39;t find permanent work has been ratcheting upward for several months.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060315j.jpg" width="353">
Finally, as might be expected from a pattern of diminished demand for labor, workers&#39; earnings are remaining on soft side. The headline series* for the average earnings index was 3.5% in January, flat with December and down from 4.0% in 2005 and 4.5% in 2004. 

<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/UK/@U7/@U7.HTM">United Kingdom</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 2005</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Employment (3Mo Avg, SA, Thous)</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>28,806</td>
<td>28,769</td>
<td>28,743</td>
<td>28,465</td>
<td>28,183</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Chg from 1 &amp; 3 Months Ago</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>+37/-7</td>
<td>+5/-56</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate &nbsp;(3Mo Avg, SA, %)</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>5.1</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>5.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Claimant Count (Monthly, Thous)</td>
<td>919.7</td>
<td>905.1</td>
<td>906.2</td>
<td>901.9</td>
<td>861.1</td>
<td>853.6</td>
<td>933.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Vacancies (Monthly, Thous)</td>
<td>610.7</td>
<td>612.9</td>
<td>627.9</td>
<td>607.6</td>
<td>626.7</td>
<td>635.5</td>
<td>587.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Average Earnings Index inc Bonus (Headline Rate*)</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>4.5</td>
<td>3.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Louise Curley

<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/060314g.jpg" width="353">
The role of industrial production in most highly developed economies has declined in importance as the role of services has loomed larger. Nevertheless, industrial production still represents a significant portion of these economies and its monthly measurement can be a useful early indicator of total economic activity.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060314e.jpg" width="353">
Several Continental European countries have reported Industrial Production indexes for January over the past week. The picture is mixed. The year-to-year percentage increases range from a minimal increase of 0.10% for France to a 15.27% increase for the Czech Republic. More important than one month changes, however, are the underlying trends.
Industrial production in France, Italy, Belgium, Spain and Greece has shown little evidence of a trend either up or down over the past five years. The indexes for these countries in recent months are little different from the base of 100 established in 2000. As an example of these trends, industrial production indexes for Belgium and Italy are shown in the first chart.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060314f.jpg" width="353">
In sharp contrast to the experience of these countries, the trends in industrial production in Ireland and the Czech Republic have been significantly upwards as shown in the second chart. More important than these, relatively small economies, is the improvement in industrial production in Germany where production is now some 11% higher than the low point of 97.7 (2000=100) reached in September, 2003. Germany is the only major continental country where Industrial production has shown even a modest upward trend. The third chart contrasts German Industrial Production with that of France.

<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/G10/@GZ/@GZ3/@GZ301/@GZ301.HTM">Industrial Production&nbsp; Indexes (2000=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">Jan 06</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 05</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2005&nbsp; </th>
<th scope="col">2004&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2003&nbsp;&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany (SAWDA)</td>
<td>108.8</td>
<td>108.4</td>
<td>104.6</td>
<td>4.02</td>
<td>106.0</td>
<td>102.5</td>
<td>99.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">France (SAWDA)</td>
<td>102.2</td>
<td>101.9</td>
<td>102.1</td>
<td>0.10</td>
<td>101.2</td>
<td>101.3</td>
<td>99.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Italy (NAS)</td>
<td>92.1</td>
<td>90.1</td>
<td>88.5</td>
<td>4.07</td>
<td>95.5</td>
<td>97.3</td>
<td>96.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Belgium&nbsp; (NAS)</td>
<td>97.7</td>
<td>102.7</td>
<td>94.6</td>
<td>3.28</td>
<td>101.4</td>
<td>102.6</td>
<td>100.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Greece (NAS)</td>
<td>89.1</td>
<td>95.3</td>
<td>87.8</td>
<td>1.48</td>
<td>99.3</td>
<td>100.5</td>
<td>99.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"> Spain&nbsp; (NAS)</td>
<td>&nbsp;101.9</td>
<td>96.7&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;96.8</td>
<td>5.27&nbsp;</td>
<td>102.4&nbsp;</td>
<td>102.3&nbsp;</td>
<td>100.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Ireland (SA)</td>
<td>141.6</td>
<td>126.7</td>
<td>128.8</td>
<td>9.94</td>
<td>127.6</td>
<td>123.9</td>
<td>123.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Czech Republic&nbsp; (SA)</td>
<td>157.8</td>
<td>148.4</td>
<td>136.9</td>
<td>15.27</td>
<td>144.1</td>
<td>135.6</td>
<td>123.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The role of industrial production in most highly developed economies has declined in importance as the role of services has loomed larger. Nevertheless, industrial production still represents a significant portion of these economies [...]

A Sampling of Industrial Production Reports Suggests Economic Growth in Continental Europe Still on the Low Side

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

Andrew Cates

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

250501Z1.jpg

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

250501Z2.jpg

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

250501Z3.jpg

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

250501Z4.jpg

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

250501Z5.jpg

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

250501Z6.jpg

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

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

Charts of the Week: Tariff Truce, Tenuous Trust

250501F20.jpg

250501G20.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

250501H20.jpg

250501I20.jpg

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

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Fall in April

250501J5.jpg

250501K5.jpg

The ISM Purchasing Managers Index of activity in the manufacturing sector slipped to 48.7 in April from 49.0 during March and 50.3 in February. It remained up from a low of 46.9 in October of last year. A level of 50 is the break-even point between a rising and falling level of activity. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected a reading of 47.8 for April. The series reached a monthly high of 63.8 in March 2021.

Two of the five component indexes weakened last month. The April production index fell to 44.0 after declining to 48.3 in March. It was the lowest level since May 2020. A lessened 19.8% (NSA) of respondents reported higher production while an increased 24.2% reported lower output. The inventories index declined to 50.8 last month from 53.4 in March. The index remained up from a low of 43.2 in October of last year.

Moving higher, the new orders index rose to 47.2 last month from 45.2 in March. The index remained below a January high of 55.1. Twenty-eight percent (NSA) of respondents reported higher new orders while 26.7% reported a decline. The employment index rose to 46.5 from 44.7 in March. It was below a high of 50.3 in January. A greater 13.1% (NSA) of respondents reported more hiring while a fewer 16.2% indicated less. The supplier delivery index rose to 55.2 from 53.5 in March. A higher 16.6% (NSA) of respondents reported slower delivery speeds while a fairly steady 6.2% reported a quickening.

The prices index, which is not part of the composite series, edged up to 69.8 (NSA) in April after increasing to 69.4 in March. It was the highest level since June 2022, up from a December 2022 low of 39.4. An increased 49.2% of respondents reported higher prices last month, up from 12.2% in November, while a higher 9.7% reported lower prices.

In other series, the export orders index plummeted to 43.1 in April from 49.6 during March. It was down from the high of 52.4 in January. The imports index fell sharply to 47.1 from 50.1 in March. It was the lowest reading since December 2023. The order backlog index dropped to 43.7 (NSA) last month from 44.5 in March. It was the lowest level in five months.

The ISM figures are based on responses from over 400 purchasing executives from 18 industries, which are weighted according to each industry’s contribution to GDP. These indexes are diffusion indexes where a reading above 50 indicates expansion and a reading below 50 points to contraction. The figures from the Institute for Supply Management can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database; further detail is found in the **SURVEYS** database. The expectations number is available in Haver’s **AS1REPNA** database.

250501L5.jpg

250501M5.jpg

- Declines in last three months follow earlier improvement.
- Production & inventories account for m/m shortfall.
- Prices index edges up to another three-year high.

Economy in Brief: March 2006

Jump to:

Philadelphia Fed Business Activity Index Off

UK Employment Conditions Continue To Erode

Mortgage Applications Meander, Interest Rates Jump Further

Empire State Index Surged

Small Business Optimism Up, Hiring Firm

Import Prices Back Down

Import Prices Back Down

A Sampling of Industrial Production Reports Suggests Economic Growth in Continental Europe Still on the Low Side