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/060717a.jpg" width="353">
Total U.S. industrial output rebounded 0.8% during June after a negligible 0.1% May gain that was upwardly revised. The rise outpaced Consensus expectations for a 0.5% increase.
Factory sector output increased 0.8% (5.7% y/y) after a 0.1% May up tick. During the second quarter manufacturing sector output rose 5.4% (AR), the same as during 1Q.
Production of durable consumer goods surged 2.2% (3.3% y/y) as output of motor vehicles &amp; parts 3.3% (3.1%) and computers &amp; video equipment jumped 1.1% (10.5% y/y). These gains, however, were offset by a 1.8% (-1.7% y/y) decline in appliance &amp; furniture production. A second 0.4% (1.1% y/y) gain in nondurable consumer goods output reflected a 0.8% (8.7% y/y) rise in clothing output.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060717b.jpg" width="353">
Business equipment production rose 0.7% (12.3% y/y) and more than recovered a 0.2% May decline. Production of information processing &amp; equipment jumped another 1.3% (21.3% y/y).
Factory output less the hi-tech industries increased 0.7% (4.6% y/y). During 2Q this output measure rose 4.5% (AR) after a 4.8% gain during 1Q.
Overall capacity utilization rose to 82.4% in June, its highest level in six years. Factory sector utilization at 80.8% also is at its highest since 2000.
Diverging Measures of Capacity Utilization: An Explanation from the Federal Reserve Board can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2004/200458/200458pap.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/output.htm">Production &amp; Capacity</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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">Industrial Production</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Manufacturing</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer Goods</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business Equipment</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>12.3%</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
<td>9.3%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Capacity Utilization</td>
<td>82.4%</td>
<td>81.8%</td>
<td>80.3% (6/05)</td>
<td>80.1%</td>
<td>78.6%</td>
<td>75.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Total U.S. industrial output rebounded 0.8% during June after a negligible 0.1% May gain that was upwardly revised. The rise outpaced Consensus expectations for a 0.5% increase. Factory sector output increased 0.8% (5.7% y/y) after a [...]

June Industrial Production Rebounded

<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/060717a.jpg" width="353">
Total U.S. industrial output rebounded 0.8% during June after a negligible 0.1% May gain that was upwardly revised. The rise outpaced Consensus expectations for a 0.5% increase.
Factory sector output increased 0.8% (5.7% y/y) after a 0.1% May up tick. During the second quarter manufacturing sector output rose 5.4% (AR), the same as during 1Q.
Production of durable consumer goods surged 2.2% (3.3% y/y) as output of motor vehicles &amp; parts 3.3% (3.1%) and computers &amp; video equipment jumped 1.1% (10.5% y/y). These gains, however, were offset by a 1.8% (-1.7% y/y) decline in appliance &amp; furniture production. A second 0.4% (1.1% y/y) gain in nondurable consumer goods output reflected a 0.8% (8.7% y/y) rise in clothing output.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060717b.jpg" width="353">
Business equipment production rose 0.7% (12.3% y/y) and more than recovered a 0.2% May decline. Production of information processing &amp; equipment jumped another 1.3% (21.3% y/y).
Factory output less the hi-tech industries increased 0.7% (4.6% y/y). During 2Q this output measure rose 4.5% (AR) after a 4.8% gain during 1Q.
Overall capacity utilization rose to 82.4% in June, its highest level in six years. Factory sector utilization at 80.8% also is at its highest since 2000.
Diverging Measures of Capacity Utilization: An Explanation from the Federal Reserve Board can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2004/200458/200458pap.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/output.htm">Production &amp; Capacity</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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">Industrial Production</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Manufacturing</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer Goods</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business Equipment</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>12.3%</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
<td>9.3%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Capacity Utilization</td>
<td>82.4%</td>
<td>81.8%</td>
<td>80.3% (6/05)</td>
<td>80.1%</td>
<td>78.6%</td>
<td>75.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Empire State Index Slipped During July 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> July 17, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060717c.jpg" width="353">
The Empire State Mfg. Index of General Business Conditions, reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, during July reversed most of the prior month&#39;s surge and fell 13.37 points to 15.64. Consensus expectations had been for a lesser decline to 20.0.
Since the series&#39; inception in 2001 there has been a 75% correlation between the index level and the three month change in U.S. factory sector industrial production.
New orders &amp; shipments both reversed all of the prior month&#39;s improvement with sharp declines to the lowest levels of 2006. However, the index indicating the number of employees rose modestly m/m to a still low level.
Pricing pressure eased slightly. Since 2001 there has been an 88% correlation between the index of prices paid and the three month change in the core intermediate materials PPI.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060717d.jpg" width="353">
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 Empire State index of expectations for business conditions in six months for July rose sharply to the highest level since January as expected new orders surged.
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>.
The Predictive Abilities of the New York Fed&#146;s Empire State Manufacturing Survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is available <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci11-1/ci11-1.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">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">July &#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>15.64</td>
<td>29.01</td>
<td>23.61</td>
<td>15.56</td>
<td>28.79</td>
<td>15.98</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Monitoring the Economic Effects of the Middle East Conflict  
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> July 17, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060717e.jpg" width="353">
Several of the economic effects of the Middle East Crisis can be monitored using data found in various Haver Databases. Among the information to be found in the daily and weekly databases are stock prices, exchange rates, spot and future oil prices, and gasoline prices in major U.S. cities.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060717f.jpg" width="353">
One of the most immediate effects of the crisis has been increases in the prices of oil and gasoline. Spot and future prices of oil are found in the DAILY database and are shown in the first chart. The spot price of Louisiana Sweet rose almost 5% in the week ending July 14 and was over 37% above July 14, 2005. The December 2006 contract price reached $80 a barrel on July 14.
The price of unleaded regular, self service gasoline at the pump for the U. S. and major cities is found in the OILWKLY database (Oil and Gas Weekly Journal.) In the second chart we show the average gasoline price for the U. S. and the gasoline price for San Francisco--one of the cities with above average prices. The average price of a gallon of gasoline in San Francisco was $3.438 on July 6 compared with $2.935 for the US as a whole. The OILWKLY database contains a wealth of information in addition to prices, such as supply and demand conditions, imports and exports and inventories.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060717g.jpg" width="353">
Some daily financial and economic data (mainly exchange rates and, in some cases, stock market indexes) are found in the INTDAILY dat base for individual countries in broad geographical regions. In the third chart we show the stock market index for Israel and the exchange rate. In the past week, the stock market declined by more than 8% and the exchange rate fell more than 3%. The MSCID database also gives daily stock market prices for many countries.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"></th>
<th scope="col">July 14&nbsp; 06</th>
<th scope="col">July 7 06</th>
<th scope="col">Jul 14 05</th>
<th scope="col">W/W%</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y%</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Spot Oil Price LA. Sweet&nbsp;</td>
<td>79.53</td>
<td>75.79</td>
<td>47.91</td>
<td>4.93</td>
<td>37.33</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Dec 2006 Contract Price</td>
<td>80.00</td>
<td>76.83</td>
<td>58.86</td>
<td>4.13</td>
<td>35.92</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">US Pump Price Unleaded, Self Serve Gasoline*</td>
<td>293.5</td>
<td>291.6</td>
<td>222.0</td>
<td>0.65</td>
<td>32.21</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">San Francisco Pump Price Unleaded, Self Serve*</td>
<td>343.80</td>
<td>341.70</td>
<td>247.70</td>
<td>0.61</td>
<td>38.80</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Israel Stock Index Tel Aviv 100( 12/91/=100)</td>
<td>763.31</td>
<td>834.58</td>
<td>686.75</td>
<td>-8.34</td>
<td>11.15</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Israel Exchange Rate&nbsp; New Shequel/US$ &nbsp;</td>
<td>4.5393</td>
<td>4.3579</td>
<td>4.5351</td>
<td>-3.34</td>
<td>-0.09</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

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/060714e.jpg" width="353">
The Bank of Japan announced a policy change today (Friday). The best way to describe it is to quote the Bank&#39;s own text:&quot;At the Monetary Policy Meeting held today, the Bank of Japan decided, by a unanimous vote, to change the guideline for money market operations for the intermeeting period, effective immediately from the announcement of the decision. &quot;The Bank of Japan will encourage the uncollateralized overnight call rate to remain at around 0.25 percent.&quot; This reflects basically a 25-basis-point increase in that key money market interest rate. The Bank also raised its discount rate from 0.1% to 0.4%. This rate covers bank borrowing directly from the Bank of Japan under its lending facility; at the same time, waivers of extra fees -- &quot;add-on rates&quot; -- will continue for frequent users of the facility, so the Bank is not trying to discourage its use. The Bank will also continue buying long-term Japanese government bonds in an attempt to restrain any general rise in long-term interest rates.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714f.jpg" width="353">
This is the first increase in the BoJ&#39;s basic rate structure since July 2000, when the call rate was also raised from near zero to 0.25%. The strength of the Japanese economy was fairly tenuous then, though, and this hike was reversed in March 2001. Now, in contrast, the BoJ believes that &quot;Japan&#39;s economy continues to expand moderately, with domestic and external demand and also the corporate and household sectors well in balance. The economy is likely to expand for a sustained period.&quot; Moreover, &quot;the year-on-year rate of change in consumer prices is projected to continue to follow a positive trend.&quot;
The Bank remains somewhat skeptical, however, and concludes its announcement with the assessment that it expects to &quot;adjust the level of the policy interest rate gradually . . . In this process, an accommodative monetary environment ensuing from very low interest rates will probably be maintained for some time.&quot;
The moderate language of the statement and the implication that further rate increases would come only slowly was milder than some market participants were anticipating, apparently, and they actually traded the yen downward on the day. The stock market fell as well, but this may be related to declines in other world markets that are in response to the violence in the Middle East and the accompanying pressure on oil prices.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714g.jpg" width="353">
We&#39;d probably agree with the BoJ, though, in their cautious attitude. Just on Tuesday, Louise Curley discussed &quot;wavering&quot; consumer sentiment in the country and on June 30, we expressed some discomfort of our own with evident hesitation in labor markets. These caveats notwithstanding, the Japanese economy is in the best condition it has seen in a good many years. The second graph here illustrates this with the Cabinet Office&#39;s index of coincident indicators and the unemployment rate. Two other conditions have changed over the past several months. Bank lending has begun to grow again. In the third graph, we see the nice uptrend developing in loans at domestic banks. At the time of the last BoJ rate hike in 2000, the banks were still under pressure from distressed loans and their loan portfolios were contracting, a process that continued until June of last year. Additionally, prices are rising, with positive year-on-year changes in the CPI now for five consecutive months. As Louise noted in her discussion Tuesday, people are now concerned that there might be more inflation than they want!

</body>
</html>

The Bank of Japan announced a policy change today (Friday). The best way to describe it is to quote the Bank's own text:"At the Monetary Policy Meeting held today, the Bank of Japan decided, by a unanimous vote, to change the [...]

Bank of Japan Raises Key Interest Rates

<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/060714j.jpg" width="353">
Total business inventories increased 0.8% during May, about matched the prior month&#39;s strong gain and easily surpassed Consensus expectations for a 0.4% rise.
Retail inventories jumped 1.6% after a slight slip during April. Motor vehicle inventories surged 3.2% (4.1% y/y) while less autos, retail inventories rose a strong 0.8% led by a 1.1% (6.3% y/y) jump in apparel. General merchandise inventories firmed 0.7% (-0.7% y/y) but furniture inventories rose just 0.2% (5.2% y/y).
Wholesale inventories jumped 0.8% as petroleum inventories surged 7.1% (35.9% y/y). Durables rose 0.8% (8.7% y/y). During the last ten years there has been a 67% correlation between the y/y change in wholesale inventories and the change in imports of nonpetroleum goods.
Factory sector inventories slipped modestly after a 1.0% April spike.
The inventory to sales ratio for total business slipped back to its low 1.25 as business sales jumped 1.4% (8.8% y/y).

<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">May</th>
<th scope="col">April</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>0.8%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Retail</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Retail excl. Autos</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>9.8%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>-0.0%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>6.9%</td>
<td>-7.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Total business inventories increased 0.8% during May, about matched the prior month's strong gain and easily surpassed Consensus expectations for a 0.4% rise. Retail inventories jumped 1.6% after a slight slip during April. Motor [...]

U.S. Business Inventories Gain

<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/060714l.jpg" width="353">
Total import prices rose just 0.1% last month after a 1.7% surge during May and about matched Consensus expectations for a 0.2% advance.
Lower petroleum prices held back the increase with a 1.4% decline. That likely will not be repeated in July given that Brent crude oil prices this month have ranged between $72 and $76 per barrel versus a June average of $68.56.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714k.jpg" width="353">
Import prices less petroleum rose 0.4% after an upwardly revised 0.7% May increase. The rise was led by a 1.1% (11.2% y/y) increase in nonoil industrial supplies such as a 9.3% (66.4% y/y) spike in nonferrous metals prices.
Capital goods prices rose 0.3% (-1.1% y/y) but excluding computers, capital goods prices rose 0.5% (1.2% y/y). Prices for nonauto consumer goods inched up 0.1% for the second consecutive month (-0.1% y/y).
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 rose a firm 0.8% led by a 1.8% gain in industrial supplies (13.3% y/y) prices.

<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">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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>0.1%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>7.2%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Petroleum</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>32.6%</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>0.4%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Export - All Commodities</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Total import prices rose just 0.1% last month after a 1.7% surge during May and about matched Consensus expectations for a 0.2% advance. Lower petroleum prices held back the increase with a 1.4% decline. That likely will not be [...]

Import Prices Up Just 0.1%

<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/060714h.jpg" width="353">
Consumer sentiment early this month reversed part of its June improvement and sagged 2.2% to 83.0, according to the University of Michigan. The decline ran counter to Consensus expectations for a modest increase to 85.5.
During the last ten years there has been a 77% correlation between the level of consumer sentiment and the y/y change in real consumer spending.
The reading of current economic conditions reversed about half of the June increase with a 4.0% decline. The index of current personal finances reversed nearly all of the prior month&#39;s rise with an 8.0% (-14.8% y/y) decline though buying conditions for large household goods fell a modest 1.3% (-8.7% y/y).<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714i.jpg" width="353">
Expectations for the economy fell a modest 0.6% but it was the fifth decline his year. It was led by a 5.7% (-25.9% y/y) decline in 12 month expected business conditions although 5 year expected conditions improved modestly, the first gain in four months, as did expected personal finances.
Consumers&#39; opinion about gov&#39;t economic policy recovered 5.4% m/m (-15.2% y/y), the first monthly increase since March while expected inflation during the next year fell sharply to 3.7%, its lowest since February. The five to ten year expected rate of inflation also fell to 3.2%, its lowest in over a year.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.The mid-month survey is based on telephone interviews with 250 households nationwide on personal finances and business and buying conditions. The survey is expanded to a total of 500 interviews at month end.

<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/@EF/@EF14/@EF1402/@EF1402.HTM">University of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col">July (Prelim.)</th>
<th scope="col">June</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">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>83.0</td>
<td>84.9</td>
<td>-14.0%</td>
<td>88.6</td>
<td>95.2</td>
<td>87.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>100.8</td>
<td>105.0</td>
<td>-11.2%</td>
<td>105.9</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>97.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Expectations</td>
<td>71.6</td>
<td>72.0</td>
<td>-16.3%</td>
<td>77.4</td>
<td>88.5</td>
<td>81.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Consumer sentiment early this month reversed part of its June improvement and sagged 2.2% to 83.0, according to the University of Michigan. The decline ran counter to Consensus expectations for a modest increase to 85.5. During the [...]

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Sagged

<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/060714a.jpg" width="353">
The 2Q &#39;06 Composite Business Index published by the Manufacturers&#39; Alliance/MAPI fell moderately to 71 from 74 the prior quarter. The figure, however, was higher than the year earlier level and so far in 2006 the average reading of 73 compared favorably to last year&#39;s average of 70.
During the last ten years there has been a 69% correlation between the Composite Index Level and quarterly growth in US factory sector output.
The current orders index fell to 81 from 85 in 1Q and the average this year equaled that for all of last year. Since early 2004 the orders index has trended lower from a high of 93.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714b.jpg" width="353">
The 2Q export orders index fell to 72 from 78 in 1Q and from 74 averaged in 2004 &amp; 2005. During the last ten years there has been a 59% correlation between the export orders index and quarterly growth in real US exports.
The profit margins index fell sharply to 74 from 82 in 1Q. Both figures were up sharply from the 2005 average of 65.Capital spending intentions for the coming year moved higher q/q with the index at a record high of 86. During the last ten years there has been a 75% correlation between the capital spending index a q/q growth in business investment.
The survey of 60 senior financial executives representing a broad range of manufacturing industries reflects the views on current &amp; future business conditions. The business outlook index is a weighted sum of shipments, backlogs, inventories, and profit margin indexes.
For the latest US Business Outlook from the MAPI click <a href="http://www.mapi.net/html/prelease.cfm?release_id=2316">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/@SE/@SE.HTM">Manufacturers&#39; Alliance/MAPI Survey</a></th>
<th scope="col">2Q &#39;06</th>
<th scope="col">1Q &#39;06</th>
<th scope="col">2Q &#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">Composite Business Index</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>67</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The 2Q '06 Composite Business Index published by the Manufacturers' Alliance/MAPI fell moderately to 71 from 74 the prior quarter. The figure, however, was higher than the year earlier level and so far in 2006 the average reading of [...]

MAPI Business Outlook Survey Off Moderately

<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/060714c.jpg" width="353">
US retail sales fell 0.1% last month following an unrevised 0.1% up tick during May. It was the first m/m decline since February and it resulted in a 3.7% (AR) increase for 2Q after the 13.4% jump the prior quarter. Consensus expectations had been for a 0.4% increase in sales last month.
Nonauto retail sales increased an expected 0.3% but the rise during May was revised up to 0.7%. Nonauto retail spending grew 6.6% (AR) last quarter after an 11.4% rise during 1Q.
Lower sales by motor vehicle &amp; parts dealers led last month&#39;s sales decline. A 1.4% drop (-3.5% y/y) was the third m/m decline this year despite a 1.3% rise in June unit auto sales to 16.30M.
Building material sales fell further in June. The 1.0% (+8.8% y/y) m/m decline was the third in a row and the fifth in the last seven months.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060714d.jpg" width="353">
Sales at gasoline stations increased another 1.1% (20.4% y/y) even though retail gasoline prices fell 0.8% m/m during June to an average of $2.89 per gallon. Gas prices have since jumped to $2.97.
Less gasoline, nonauto retail sales rose 0.1% (7.0% y/y) after a 0.6% May increase that was double the rise estimated initially. During 2Q, nonauto retail sales less gasoline increased 3.3% (AR) after a 12.2% spurt during 1Q.
Sales of discretionary items were firm last month. Sales of furniture, electronics &amp; appliances increased 0.4% (6.8% y/y) after a 0.3% gain during May which was initially estimated as a 0.1% decline. General merchandise stores rose 0.3% (4.6% y/y) after an unrevised like gain during May and apparel store sales also rose 0.3% (4.9% y/y) though the prior month&#39;s increase was doubled to 0.4%. Sales of nonstore retailers (internet &amp; catalogue) slipped 0.3% (12.3% y/y) after an upwardly revised 3.0% May spike.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</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"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/usecon/@ED/@ED04/@ED0401/@ED0401.HTM">Retail Sales &amp; Food Services</a></td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>7.2%</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding Autos</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>8.5%</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td>7.2%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

US retail sales fell 0.1% last month following an unrevised 0.1% up tick during May. It was the first m/m decline since February and it resulted in a 3.7% (AR) increase for 2Q after the 13.4% jump the prior quarter. Consensus [...]

U.S. Retail Sales Lower Due To Weakness in Autos & Housing

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

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

Equity market exuberance outpacing macroeconomic data

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

US production rebounded in Q2, but demand continued to slow

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

Negative US inflation surprises leading G10 down

Deflation continues in China

Incoming data surprising on downside in US; positive surprises elsewhere

FOMC expects more inflation and less growth than in March

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

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

Apart from Japan, Blue Chip forecasters look for further significant monetary policy easing

Apart from the US, productivity is moribund

Financial market concerns ebb even though policy uncertainty continues to soar

US tariff revenues nearly doubled in April

Even with expected tariff-induced increases in inflation, BCFF forecasters look for a more aggressive round of monetary easing

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

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. 

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

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

Andrew Cates

**The US labour market**
The latest data highlight a growing sense of fragility in the US labour market. The unemployment rate, while still relatively low by historical standards, has been edging higher through the course of this year. More telling, however, is the signal from this week’s consumer confidence survey from Conference Board and specifically the labour market differential — the gap between the share of consumers saying jobs are plentiful versus those saying jobs are hard to get. That balance has narrowed sharply, moving back toward levels historically associated with softer labour demand and rising unemployment.

250828Z1.jpg

**Goods and services inflation** 
Haver’s breakdown of goods and services CPI inflation in the advanced economies highlights where fresh risks are emerging. Goods inflation, which had been receding sharply after the pandemic supply shocks, has recently shown signs of firming again. Some of this probably reflects the impact of US tariff policies, which are raising import costs and putting renewed upward pressure on traded goods prices. While services inflation remains the more stubborn component in most advanced economies, the risk is that tariffs could reintroduce stickiness into goods prices, slowing the overall disinflation process.

250828Z2.jpg

**China, Europe and US trade policy**
A consequence of US tariff policies has been a sharp contraction in Chinese exports to the US market, with much of the surplus redirected elsewhere. Europe in particular has recorded near double-digit import growth in recent months, raising concerns that Beijing is deflecting its industrial overcapacity problem rather than resolving it, effectively transferring the pressure onto trading partners. China’s authorities, however, have begun to push back, introducing measures to curb excess supply and rein in so-called “involution,” including clampdowns on price wars across several industries.

250828Z3.jpg

**China’s excess capacity and Europe**
A closer look at Europe–China trade shows that electric vehicles remain a key flashpoint. Import volumes from China have continued to rise even as per-unit prices fall sharply from a year ago —evidence suggesting that industrial overcapacity persists, with low-cost Chinese EVs increasingly challenging European automakers. The surge has carried on despite EU tariffs of up to 45% on battery EVs, as Chinese producers have adapted by pushing plug-in hybrids and expanding onshore production in Europe to bypass duties and defend market share.

250828Z4.jpg

**Wage growth in the US and Europe** 
Turning back to inflation dynamics, the UK stands out for its persistent wage pressures. While posted wage growth has cooled across the US and euro area, the UK measure has remained elevated at around 6% year-on-year, well above pre-pandemic norms. This stickiness reflects a still-tight labour market in key service sectors, even as broader activity has slowed and unemployment has edged higher. For the Bank of England, it underscores the dilemma: headline inflation is easing, but underlying pay growth risks keeping services inflation uncomfortably high, complicating the timing and scale of policy easing.

250828Z5.jpg

**The UK economy**
The UK’s net international investment position has deteriorated noticeably in recent years, with both direct investment and portfolio flows showing persistent weakness. The latest data underline how net FDI has turned increasingly negative, while the portfolio investment balance has also eroded, leaving the UK more reliant on volatile short-term funding sources. This deterioration comes against a backdrop of heightened investor unease about the riskiness of UK debt markets, where elevated gilt yields and rising debt-servicing costs have amplified concerns over fiscal sustainability. Taken together, these trends underscore the vulnerability of the UK’s external position at a time when global capital is arguably proving more selective and risk sensitive.

250828Z6.jpg

Global markets have continued to rally into late summer, buoyed by AI optimism, dovish signals from central bankers at Jackson Hole, and expectations of easier policy ahead. Yet beneath the surface, risks to the world economy are accumulating. In the US, labour market indicators point to softening conditions (chart 1), while tariff-driven pressures are beginning to push goods prices higher (chart 2). Global trade flows are being reshaped by US policy, with China’s excess capacity increasingly diverted toward Europe, most visibly through surging exports of electric vehicles (EVs) (charts 3 and 4). At the same time, wage growth remains stubbornly elevated in the UK, complicating disinflation (chart 5), while concerns are mounting over the country’s external vulnerabilities as net FDI and portfolio positions weaken against the backdrop of jittery debt markets (chart 6). Together, these dynamics highlight the tension between buoyant market performance and a global economy still grappling with structural fragilities.

Charts of the Week: Riskbusters

250828N8.jpg

250828C8.jpg

Real GDP grew 3.3% (SAAR) during the second quarter of 2025, revised from a 3.0% gain reported initially. The increase followed an unrevised 0.5% decline in Q1. A 3.1% rise had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Growth during the last four quarters of 2.1% compared to 2.0% y/y in Q1, and remained below its most recent high of 3.2% in Q4 2023.

After-tax corporate profits without IVA & CCA adjustment increased 1.4% (7.0% y/y) last quarter after easing 0.8% in Q1. Before-tax earnings with IVA & CCA rose 1.7% (4.3% y/y) after falling 2.3% in Q1. Financial sector earnings rose 1.4% (15.3% y/y) after rising 2.3% in Q1. Nonfinancial corporate profits rose 2.2% (2.5% y/y) after falling 2.5% in Q1. Earnings from abroad eased 0.7% (-0.4% y/y) following a 7.3% Q1 decline.

Foreign trade balance improvement added 4.95 percentage points to growth last quarter after subtracting 4.61 percentage points in Q1. Imports fell 29.8% (+1.3% y/y) after surging 38.0% in Q1. Exports declined 1.3% (+2.0% y/y) after improving 0.4% in Q1. Inventories subtracted 3.29 percentage points from growth after adding 2.59 percentage point to Q1 growth.

Real final sales to domestic purchasers grew 1.6% (2.4% y/y), revised from 1.1%, in Q2 after rising 1.5% in Q1. Personal consumption expenditures rose 1.6% (2.4% y/y), revised from 1.4%, following a 0.5% gain. Durable goods spending rose 2.6% (4.6% y/y) after falling 3.7% in Q1. Motor vehicle purchases strengthened 11.7% (6.7% y/y) after declining 11.2% in Q1. Spending on home furnishings & appliances weakened 2.1% (+3.5% y/y) following a 1.5% rise. Recreational goods & vehicle outlays fell 3.5% (+4.3% y/y) last quarter after a 0.4% Q1 gain.

Nondurable goods outlays in constant dollars rose 2.3% (3.0% y/y) following 2.1% growth in Q1. Apparel spending increased 5.4% (4.8% y/y) following a 7.0% rise. Food & beverage buying gained 0.3% (1.5% y/y) after a 1.0% increase. Gasoline & fuel oil purchases weakened 1.4% (+0.9% y/y) after gaining 3.6% in Q1.

Real spending on services increased 1.2% (1.9% y/y) after a 0.6% gain. Outlays on housing & utilities eased 0.4% (+1.1% y/y) after rising 2.9% in Q1. Health care expenditures rose 4.2% (4.8% y/y) after a 3.1% increase. Transportation outlays declined 2.9% (-0.6% y/y) after a 1.4% rise, while recreation spending rose 3.6% (0.7% y/y) following a 5.1% decline. Restaurant & hotel expenditures increased 5.1% (1.9% y/y) after falling 1.8%. Financial services expenditures rose 1.9% (2.3% y/y) following a 0.1% Q1 increase.

Business fixed investment in constant dollars increased 5.7% last quarter (4.2% y/y), revised from 1.9%, following a 10.3% surge in Q1. Expenditures on structures declined 8.9% (-3.4% y/y), after falling 2.4% in Q1. Expenditures on producers’ durable equipment increased 7.4% (7.7% y/y), revised from 4.8%, after surging 23.7% in Q1. Outlays on information processing equipment rose 10.1% (20.1% y/y), revised from 5.5%, after soaring 72.8% during Q1. Industrial equipment investment rose 6.7% (4.0% y/y) after a 4.7% rise. Transportation equipment investment surged 20.4% (6.8% y/y) after a 6.9% gain. Intellectual property product spending rose 12.8% last quarter (5.2% y/y) following a 6.0% rise.

Residential structures investment in real terms declined a little-revised 4.7% (-1.3% y/y), the fourth decline in the last five quarters.

250828O8.jpg

250828P8.jpg

Government spending eased 0.2%, revised from up 0.5% in Q2 (+1.8% y/y) after a 0.6% decline. Federal government expenditures declined 4.7% (+0.7% y/y) after falling 4.6% in Q1. National defense expenditures increased 1.4% (3.0% y/y) after declining 7.1% in Q1. State & local government spending rose 2.6% (2.5% y/y) following a 2.0% rise.

The GDP chain price index rose an unrevised and expected 2.0% last quarter (2.5% y/y) after increasing 3.8% in Q1. The PCE chain price index increased 2.0% (2.4% y/y) following a 3.7% rise. The PCE price index excluding food and energy rose 2.5% (2.7% y/y) after increasing 3.5% in Q1. The business fixed investment price index edged 0.5% lower (+1.1% y/y) after a 0.4% rise. The residential price index rose 1.1% (2.6% y/y) after a 4.1% rise while the government price index increased 3.3% (3.1% y/y) following a 4.6% rise.

The GDP data can be found in Haver’s **USECON** and **USNA** databases. **USNA** contains virtually all of the Bureau of Economic Analysis detail in the national accounts. The Action Economics consensus estimates can be found in **AS1REPNA**.

250828Q8.jpg

250828S8.jpg

- Business investment strengthens & consumer spending firms.
- U.S. business earnings reverse Q1 decline.
- Increase in price index is unrevised, remaining roughly half of Q1’s gain.

U.S. GDP Q2’25 Growth Revised Up; Profits Improve

Sandy Batten

250828J2.jpg

250828K2.jpg

The Kansas City Fed manufacturing composite index was unchanged at 1 in August from July. This was the second consecutive month that the index has been positive, indicating the manufacturing in the KC Fed district continue to inch up in August. Prior to the positive reading in July, the index had been negative for 22 consecutive months. The index’s most recent high was 31 reached in both April 2021 and October 2021. The durable manufacturing sector was mostly flat in August, while nondurable manufacturing activity declined slightly driven by printing activities and paper and chemical manufacturing. 

The August survey was open for a six-day period from August 20-25, 2025 and included 103 responses from plants in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming, northern New Mexico, and western Missouri.

The ISM-adjusted index calculated by Haver Analytics rose to 51.1 (NSA) in August from 50.2 in July. This was the fifth reading above the critical 50 level that separates expansion from contraction in the past six months, a further indication of expanding manufacturing activity.

For the major component indexes, the production index was 0 in August, but this was up from -3 in July. The new orders index rose to 5 in August, its highest reading since May 2022, from 2 in July. The shipments index increased to 6 in August from 3 in July. The employment index was 0 in August, but this was up from -11 in July. Also, the average workweek index rebounded to 3 in August after having been in negative territory for the previous four months. Supplier delivery times were unchanged at 7 in August. The elevation of this index since April may indicate some incipient supply-chain disruptions from higher tariffs. In contrast, raw materials inventories fell to -7 in August from 8 in July.

On the inflation front, the prices paid for raw materials index remained elevated but fell to 43 in August from 47 in July and a local high of 51 in June. Forty-four percent of respondents reported an increase in raw materials prices in August, down from 48% in July and 53% in June, while only 4% reported a decrease, down from 5% in July and 6% in June. The prices received for finished products index increased to 21 in August from 18 in July. This index has fluctuated in a range between 17 and 21 for the past four months.

Expectations for future activity remained positive, with the composite index rising to 11 from 8, as firms anticipate an improvement in production and new orders. While expectations have been trending up over the past several months, they remain depressed relative to the recent high reading of 17 last December. Capital expenditures expectations remained in negative territory in August for the second consecutive month but edged up to -3 from -4 in July.

The series dates back to July 2001. The diffusion indexes are calculated as the percentage of total respondents reporting increases minus the percentage reporting declines. The composite index is an average of the production, new orders, employment, supplier delivery time, and raw materials inventory indexes. Data for the Kansas City Fed Survey can be found in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database.

250828L2.jpg

250828M2.jpg

- Index remained (though barely) in positive territory for the second consecutive month, indicating that manufacturing activity was inching up.
- Prior to last month, the index had been negative for 22 consecutive months.
- Positive readings across most key components.

FRB Kansas City Manufacturing Index Unchanged in August

250828F0.jpg

250828G0.jpg

The Pending Home Sales Index weakened 0.4% in July (+0.7% y/y) to 71.7 after falling an unrevised 0.8% in June and rising an unrevised 1.8% in May, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). The Index remained 42.7% below its most recent peak of 125.1 in October 2021. The index is a forward-looking measure of home sales based on contract signings.

The fall in pending home sales occurred as the average rate on a 30-year mortgage rose to 6.72% in July after holding steady m/m at 6.82% in June. These rates remained well above a low of 5.22% in August 2022 and more than double a record-low 2.68% in December 2020.

Pending home sales were mixed last month in the four major regions of the country. Sales in the Midwest declined 4.0% (+1.3% y/y) in July after easing 0.8% in June. Sales in the Northeast fell 0.6% both m/m and y/y, after holding steady in June. In the South, sales eased 0.1% (+1.8% y/y) following a 0.6% June decline, but sales in the West increased 3.7% (-1.9% y/y), reversing a 3.9% June drop.

The pending home sales index measures sales at the time the contract for the purchase of an existing home is signed, similar to the Census Bureau's new home sales data. In contrast, the National Association of Realtors' existing home sales data are recorded when the sale is closed, which is usually a couple of months after the sales contract has been signed. In developing the pending home sales index, the NAR found that the level of monthly sales contract activity leads the level of closed existing home sales by about two months.

The series dates back to 2001 and are available in Haver's **PREALTOR** database. Weekly mortgage interest rates from the Mortgage Bankers Association can be found in the **WEEKLY** database.

- Decline adds to June weakness.
- Regional changes are mixed.


U.S. Pending Home Sales Decline in July

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

250828A5.jpg

250828B5.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance declined to 229,000 during the week of August 23, after rising to 234,000 in the week of August 16, revised from 235,000. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected 230,000 initial claims for last week. The four-week moving average of initial claims increased to 228,500 from 226,000, revised from 226,250. It was the highest level since the second week of July.

In the week ended August 16, the total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries – also known as “continuing claims” – decreased by 7,000 to 1.954 million from 1.961 million in the prior week, revised down by 11,000 from 1.972 million. The four-week moving average rose to 1.956 million in the week ending August 16, the highest level in six weeks, and up from 1.952 million in the prior week, revised from 1.955 million.

In the week ending August 16, the insured rate of unemployment (the number of beneficiaries as a percent of covered employment) was 1.3% for the twelfth consecutive week.

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ended August 9, the highest unemployment rates were in New Jersey (2.75%), Rhode Island (2.58%), Massachusetts (2.18%), Minnesota (2.17%), California (2.11%), Washington (2.08%), District of Columbia (2.04%), and Puerto Rico (2.02%). The lowest were in South Dakota (0.28%), Florida (0.42%), and Alabama and North Carolina (both 0.47%). Rates in other notable states include Pennsylvania (1.92%), New York (1.73%), Illinois (1.72%), and Texas (1.24%). These state data are not seasonally adjusted.

Data on weekly unemployment claims are from the Department of Labor itself, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They begin in 1967 and are contained in Haver’s **WEEKLY** database and summarized monthly in **USECON**. Data for individual states are in **REGIONW** back to December 1986. The expectations figure is from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250828C5.jpg

250828D5.jpg

- Initial claims declined in latest week after a surge in the prior week.
- Continuing claims declined.
- Insured unemployment rate holds steady.

Economy in Brief: July 2006

Jump to:

June Industrial Production Rebounded

June Industrial Production Rebounded

Bank of Japan Raises Key Interest Rates

U.S. Business Inventories Gain

Import Prices Up Just 0.1%

U.S. Consumer Sentiment Sagged

MAPI Business Outlook Survey Off Moderately

U.S. Retail Sales Lower Due To Weakness in Autos & Housing