Robert Brusca

<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/070627e.jpg" width="353">
French climate and outlook are on a strong improving trend.
The services sector is still doing well. The climate and outlook indicators are strong in their respective ranges. Observed and expected sales are still strong but both are off peak. Observed and expected employment indicators are also off peak. The expected responses for these two indicators are sharply lower in June. Expected series are firm but only in about the 60th percentile of their respective ranges.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070627f.jpg" width="353">
The second table below summarizes France&#146;s Industry survey for June. The report scrapped and got back two of the four points it lost in May. The trends are still firm with climate nearly in the upper 25 percentile of its range. Recent and likely trend assessments spurted in June. Foreign and also domestic orders are slipping slightly with both having peaks in April. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
France INSEE Services Survey Jan 2000-date
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Jun-07</td>
<td>May-07</td>
<td>Apr-07</td>
<td>Mar-07</td>
<td>Percentile</td>
<td>Rank</td>
<td>Max</td>
<td>Min</td>
<td>Range</td>
<td>Mean</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Climate Indicator</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>108</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>78.8</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>116</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>102</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Climate: 3-Mo MAV</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>108</td>
<td>108</td>
<td>81.6</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>114</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>102</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Climate: 12-Mo MAV</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>108</td>
<td>92.4</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>110</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>101</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Outlook</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>86.1</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>-1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Sales</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&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">&nbsp; Observed 3-Mos</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>83.3</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Expected 3-Mos</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>68.8</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>-10</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Sales Price</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&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">&nbsp; Observed over 3-Mos</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-2</td>
<td>41.7</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>-4</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Expected over 3-Mos</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-1</td>
<td>60.0</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Employment</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&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">&nbsp; Observed over 3-Mos</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>70.6</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Expected over 3-Mos</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>60.0</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
INSEE Industry Survey
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="4">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="2">Since Jan 1990</td>
<td colspan="4">Since Jan 1990</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Jun-07</td>
<td>May-07</td>
<td>Apr-07</td>
<td>Mar-07</td>
<td>Percentile</td>
<td>Rank</td>
<td>Max</td>
<td>Min</td>
<td>Range</td>
<td>Mean</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Climate</td>
<td>110</td>
<td>108</td>
<td>112</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>74.0</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>123</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>101</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="11">Production</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Recent Trend</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>-2</td>
<td>80.4</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>-58</td>
<td>102</td>
<td>-6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Likely trend</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>63.5</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>-33</td>
<td>96</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="11">Orders/Demand</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Orders &amp; Demand</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>75.9</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>-62</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>-15</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Foreign Orders &amp; Demand</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>69.7</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>-58</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>-11</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="11">Prices</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Likely Sales Prices Trend</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>68.1</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

French climate and outlook are on a strong improving trend. The services sector is still doing well. The climate and outlook indicators are strong in their respective ranges. Observed and expected sales are still strong but both are [...]

France’s Service and Industry Sector Outlook Strong

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070627a.jpg" width="353">
The upswing in durable goods trends is still in progress although the weakness in May has reduced much of its clout and blunted the Yr/Yr gain. 
Durable goods orders are down by a sharp 2.8% m/m in May after gains of 1.1% in April and 5.1% in March. For non-transportation the May loss is -1% and compares to gains of 2.5% in April and 1.6% in March. The accompanying chars plot the trends from this series and they are still turning higher. Inventory growth is being cut to zero and order backlog growth is slowing, but still strong.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070627b.jpg" width="353"> 
Inventory-to-sales ratios are being cut across sectors as shipment growth surpasses inventory growth in six of seven major industry groups over the past 3 months. That result holds for five of seven industries over a six month horizon as well. Yr/Yr, however, inventory growth has still surpassed the growth in shipments for ALL seven industries, indicating why stock-paring is still going on. Over three months inventories were cut outright in three of seven industries. 
These statistics describe a sort of running correction in the durable goods sector. Shipment growth rates are extremely strong (annualized) over the past three months. Six-month growth in shipments is mostly firm to strong across sectors, but much more varied. Yr/Yr shipment growth is mostly modest to weak. So the recent strength has not vaulted trends into a strong positive reading. 
Regional MFG surveys released this month carrying data for the month of JUNE have been strong for the most part: NY, Philadelphia and Richmond (the Dallas report that is new and not seasonally adjusted was an exception) were all strong. 
Reliability diminished? The monthly pull back in orders is in keeping with the usual volatility of the sector although volatility has grown beyond what has been normal in recent months. Out of 170 observations of 12-month volatility (standard deviation of m/m % changes over a moving 12-month period) the 4.7% volatility reading in May ranks 20th which puts it in the top 12% of all volatility rankings in the past 14 years. And the high volatility is not just &#145;May&#146; it is a result that is shared among recent months. While m/m ex transportation orders do not seem to have become more volatile, the volatility of Yr/Yr ex-transportation orders series is quite high. We have no choice but to admit that the orders series has been blasted with volatility from several sources and has become LESS RELIABLE. There is some evidence that shipments may also have been afflicted with extra volatility. 
While the ISM reports and other regional MFG surveys continue to be upbeat, they map into the durable goods data rather too-poorly to assess any change in pattern there. Suffice it so say that with the regional MFG surveys for a more current month so strong it is reasonable to think that the downshift in durable goods orders in May is not some step back but is still part of what erratic orders do in an expanding cycle. Still, with this sort of sharp drop in May orders, all eyes will be more firmly glued on what happens in June. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td><img border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070627c.jpg" width="353"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070627d.jpg" width="353"> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
Inventory-Shipment Balance By Major MFG Sector and Tenor
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2007.May</td>
<td colspan="2">3-months</td>
<td colspan="2">6-months</td>
<td colspan="2">12-months</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Major Sectors</td>
<td>Shipments</td>
<td>Inventory</td>
<td>Shipments</td>
<td>Inventory</td>
<td>Shipments</td>
<td>Inventory</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Primary metals</td>
<td>36.5%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>14.9%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Fabricated Metal Products</td>
<td>10.9%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>7.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Machinery</td>
<td>24.2%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>7.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Computers and Electronics</td>
<td>25.3%</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Electrical Equipment, Appliances &amp; Computers</td>
<td>9.2%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>13.6%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Transportation Equipment</td>
<td>10.4%</td>
<td>12.0%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">All Other Durables</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td>-3.6%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">% Sectors with rising I/S Ratio:</td>
<td>14.29%</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>28.57%</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>100.00%</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The upswing in durable goods trends is still in progress although the weakness in May has reduced much of its clout and blunted the Yr/Yr gain. Durable goods orders are down by a sharp 2.8% m/m in May after gains of 1.1% in April and [...]

U.S. Durable Goods Month Down, Trends Still Up - but for How Long?

<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/070627a.jpg" width="353">
The upswing in durable goods trends is still in progress although the weakness in May has reduced much of its clout and blunted the Yr/Yr gain. 
Durable goods orders are down by a sharp 2.8% m/m in May after gains of 1.1% in April and 5.1% in March. For non-transportation the May loss is -1% and compares to gains of 2.5% in April and 1.6% in March. The accompanying chars plot the trends from this series and they are still turning higher. Inventory growth is being cut to zero and order backlog growth is slowing, but still strong.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070627b.jpg" width="353"> 
Inventory-to-sales ratios are being cut across sectors as shipment growth surpasses inventory growth in six of seven major industry groups over the past 3 months. That result holds for five of seven industries over a six month horizon as well. Yr/Yr, however, inventory growth has still surpassed the growth in shipments for ALL seven industries, indicating why stock-paring is still going on. Over three months inventories were cut outright in three of seven industries. 
These statistics describe a sort of running correction in the durable goods sector. Shipment growth rates are extremely strong (annualized) over the past three months. Six-month growth in shipments is mostly firm to strong across sectors, but much more varied. Yr/Yr shipment growth is mostly modest to weak. So the recent strength has not vaulted trends into a strong positive reading. 
Regional MFG surveys released this month carrying data for the month of JUNE have been strong for the most part: NY, Philadelphia and Richmond (the Dallas report that is new and not seasonally adjusted was an exception) were all strong. 
Reliability diminished? The monthly pull back in orders is in keeping with the usual volatility of the sector although volatility has grown beyond what has been normal in recent months. Out of 170 observations of 12-month volatility (standard deviation of m/m % changes over a moving 12-month period) the 4.7% volatility reading in May ranks 20th which puts it in the top 12% of all volatility rankings in the past 14 years. And the high volatility is not just &#145;May&#146; it is a result that is shared among recent months. While m/m ex transportation orders do not seem to have become more volatile, the volatility of Yr/Yr ex-transportation orders series is quite high. We have no choice but to admit that the orders series has been blasted with volatility from several sources and has become LESS RELIABLE. There is some evidence that shipments may also have been afflicted with extra volatility. 
While the ISM reports and other regional MFG surveys continue to be upbeat, they map into the durable goods data rather too-poorly to assess any change in pattern there. Suffice it so say that with the regional MFG surveys for a more current month so strong it is reasonable to think that the downshift in durable goods orders in May is not some step back but is still part of what erratic orders do in an expanding cycle. Still, with this sort of sharp drop in May orders, all eyes will be more firmly glued on what happens in June. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td><img border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070627c.jpg" width="353"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070627d.jpg" width="353"> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
Inventory-Shipment Balance By Major MFG Sector and Tenor
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2007.May</td>
<td colspan="2">3-months</td>
<td colspan="2">6-months</td>
<td colspan="2">12-months</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Major Sectors</td>
<td>Shipments</td>
<td>Inventory</td>
<td>Shipments</td>
<td>Inventory</td>
<td>Shipments</td>
<td>Inventory</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Primary metals</td>
<td>36.5%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>14.9%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Fabricated Metal Products</td>
<td>10.9%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>7.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Machinery</td>
<td>24.2%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>7.9%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>7.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Computers and Electronics</td>
<td>25.3%</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Electrical Equipment, Appliances &amp; Computers</td>
<td>9.2%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>13.6%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Transportation Equipment</td>
<td>10.4%</td>
<td>12.0%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">All Other Durables</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td>-3.6%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>-1.0%</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">% Sectors with rising I/S Ratio:</td>
<td>14.29%</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>28.57%</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>100.00%</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
France’s Service and Industry Sector Outlook Strong 
by <a href="/comment/Brusca.html">Robert Brusca</a> June 27, 2007


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070627e.jpg" width="353">
French climate and outlook are on a strong improving trend.
The services sector is still doing well. The climate and outlook indicators are strong in their respective ranges. Observed and expected sales are still strong but both are off peak. Observed and expected employment indicators are also off peak. The expected responses for these two indicators are sharply lower in June. Expected series are firm but only in about the 60th percentile of their respective ranges.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070627f.jpg" width="353">
The second table below summarizes France&#146;s Industry survey for June. The report scrapped and got back two of the four points it lost in May. The trends are still firm with climate nearly in the upper 25 percentile of its range. Recent and likely trend assessments spurted in June. Foreign and also domestic orders are slipping slightly with both having peaks in April. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
France INSEE Services Survey Jan 2000-date
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Jun-07</td>
<td>May-07</td>
<td>Apr-07</td>
<td>Mar-07</td>
<td>Percentile</td>
<td>Rank</td>
<td>Max</td>
<td>Min</td>
<td>Range</td>
<td>Mean</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Climate Indicator</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>108</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>78.8</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>116</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>102</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Climate: 3-Mo MAV</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>108</td>
<td>108</td>
<td>81.6</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>114</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>102</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Climate: 12-Mo MAV</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>108</td>
<td>92.4</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>110</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>101</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Outlook</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>86.1</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>-1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Sales</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&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">&nbsp; Observed 3-Mos</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>83.3</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Expected 3-Mos</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>68.8</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>-10</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Sales Price</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&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">&nbsp; Observed over 3-Mos</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-2</td>
<td>41.7</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>-4</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Expected over 3-Mos</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>-1</td>
<td>60.0</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Employment</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&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">&nbsp; Observed over 3-Mos</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>70.6</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>-11</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Expected over 3-Mos</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>60.0</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
INSEE Industry Survey
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="4">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="2">Since Jan 1990</td>
<td colspan="4">Since Jan 1990</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Jun-07</td>
<td>May-07</td>
<td>Apr-07</td>
<td>Mar-07</td>
<td>Percentile</td>
<td>Rank</td>
<td>Max</td>
<td>Min</td>
<td>Range</td>
<td>Mean</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Climate</td>
<td>110</td>
<td>108</td>
<td>112</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>74.0</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>123</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>101</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="11">Production</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Recent Trend</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>-2</td>
<td>80.4</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>-58</td>
<td>102</td>
<td>-6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Likely trend</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>63.5</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>-33</td>
<td>96</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="11">Orders/Demand</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Orders &amp; Demand</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>75.9</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>-62</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>-15</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Foreign Orders &amp; Demand</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>69.7</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>-58</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>-11</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="11">Prices</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Likely Sales Prices Trend</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>68.1</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>-23</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Hints of Improvement in Japanese Retailing as May Sales Show Gain from Year-Ago 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> June 27, 2007


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070627g.jpg" width="353">
We fret over the Japanese economy: is it improving or not? Is it finally breaking out of 1990s stagnation enough so that deflation will go away? We&#39;re never quite sure. So when one figure is favorable, even by a little bit, we tend to get excited about it.
Today it is retail sales. In May, consumer purchases of goods in stores rose 0.1% from a year ago. The Bloomberg news service reports that of the 23 economists in its Japanese forecast survey, only 1 predicted a positive outcome for this indicator. It was the first 12-month increase since last September.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070627h.jpg" width="353">
We thought perhaps rising fuel prices had been the main mover. This had certainly been the case from about mid-2004 through mid-2006. But fuel purchases have slowed recently and for May they actually edged down from May 2006, by 0.4%. Excluding fuel, retail sales were still up 0.1%.
The largest single gain was in food and beverages, which rose 1.7%. Other categories of stores -- motor vehicle dealers, clothing, household durable goods and general merchandise -- all still saw year-on-year decreases. So it&#39;s the &quot;all other&quot; segment that helped push up the total: books, sporting goods, personal care items. These increased 1.3% over the year ago.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070627i.jpg" width="353">
The narrow scope of the May sales increase might suggest that it will turn out to be fleeting. However, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) also calculates an index, which they seasonally adjust. As shown in the table below, this index rose 0.5% in May from April, which had been up 0.3% from March. By this measure, general merchandise store sales were up in May, as were clothing stores and &quot;other&quot;, suggesting that recent uptrends have been broadening, giving a more optimistic view going forward. Thus, Japanese consumers, who face an increasing positive employment situation and the lowest unemployment since early 1998, might be starting to spend more freely. The threads of evidence from this retail sales report are thin, but they look to be braiding a stronger rope.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">JAPAN: Retail Sales</th>
<th scope="col">May 2007</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 2007</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 2007</th>
<th scope="col">Year Ago</th>
Monthly Averages
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2006</td>
<td>2005</td>
<td>2004</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total (Bil.&yen;)</td>
<td>11,012</td>
<td>11,177</td>
<td>12,077</td>
<td>11,005</td>
<td>11,271</td>
<td>11,255</td>
<td>11,143</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; % Change</td>
<td>0.5*</td>
<td>0.3*</td>
<td>-1.3*</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">ex Fuel</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>0.4</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/070626b.jpg" width="353">
The Netherlands released June data on consumer and business confidence today and Italy released data on business confidence, having released data on consumer confidence last week. In Italy confidence is expressed as an index with 2000=100 while in the Netherlands it is measured by the percent of optimists over the percent of pessimists.
Business confidence in both countries showed little change in the month of June. In Italy it was a little stronger--96.3 vs. 96.2--and in the Netherlands, a little weaker--8.5% vs. 8.9%. However, it appears that the level of business confidence is higher in the Netherlands than in Italy. The first chart compares the two measures of business confidence since 2000 when both measures were at historical highs. Business confidence in the Netherlands is above its 2000 highs while business confidence in Italy is still below its 2000 highs.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070626c.jpg" width="353">
A different picture emerges when consumer confidence is compared between the two countries. Dutch consumer confidence rose by five percentage points in June while Italian consumer confidence fell by 2.1%. Over the longer period, however, until early 2006, Italian consumers were more optimistic than their Dutch counterparts. It has only been since then that Dutch consumers have become more confident than Italian consumers as can be seen in the second chart.
Confidence measures do have an impact on consumer and business behavior, however, the connection is tentative at best. To illustrate the point we plot the year to year changes in the series, Monthly Household Consumption for the Netherlands and the consumer confidence measure in the third chart. The correlation (R) between the two series is 68%. The R-square is 46%, which means that the confidence measure explains about 46% of the variations in the two series. We also plot the year to year change in Italian industrial production and the Italian business confidence indicator in the fourth. In this case, the correlation and R-square are even lower, 46% and 21%. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070626e.jpg" width="353"><img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070626d.jpg" width="353">

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">CONFIDENCE MEASURES&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jun&nbsp; 07</th>
<th scope="col">May 07</th>
<th scope="col">Jun 06</th>
<th scope="col">M/M</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Italy&nbsp; (2000=100)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business Confidence</td>
<td>&nbsp;96.3</td>
<td>96.2</td>
<td>98.3</td>
<td>0.10</td>
<td>-2.03</td>
<td>65.8</td>
<td>87.5</td>
<td>89.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>107.2</td>
<td>109.4</td>
<td>107.0</td>
<td>-2.10</td>
<td>0.19</td>
<td>108.7</td>
<td>104.2</td>
<td>101.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"> Netherlands (% Balance) </td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Business Confidence</td>
<td>8.4</td>
<td>8.9</td>
<td>6.4</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>6.7</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>-1</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>-25</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Netherlands released June data on consumer and business confidence today and Italy released data on business confidence, having released data on consumer confidence last week. In Italy confidence is expressed as an index with [...]

Business and Consumer Confidence in Italy and the Netherlands

<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/070626i.jpg" width="353">
The present situation index is doing its leap frog advance thing and this month is one of its landing hops not an advancing hop. Expectations have moved to a weak flat-lining mode as they often do at mature stages of an expansion. If we did not have HIGH gas prices to blame we might be worried about this&#133; 
But what we do have is improving regional MFG surveys and evidence of still strong job growth. We do not have the accompanying signs that would make us really worried. My take on housing is that its declines are less severe; some regions are showing erratic advances and new home prices even rose 6% Yr/Yr. It hardly seems like all the news is bad. But then I&#146;m not on anti-depressants and I don&#146;t work at a firm that is up to its eyeballs in sub-prime paper. OK the high gas prices were a bummer. But the economic news is generally improving. 
Still, many regions of the country are just having a real tough time &#150; see table below. The East North Central region is in bad shape AKA the rust belt. Old industry and auto sector troubles are raging in these states where current conditions, the strong reading of the trio, is some 20% lower than its level at end of the last recession. New England and the West North Central states are also laggards. But most regions are 20% above those lows with the Western Mountain States and the Pacific States considerably better off. Moreover, this month took all the regional readings down hard except New England. 
While the regional reports look pretty glum, the responses arrayed by category do not. The confidence index is still in the top 15% of its post-recession range, as is the present situation. Expectations are weaker, in the 54th percentile of their range (see below). 
As for survey components, business conditions in the present situation are in the top 20% of their range as is employment. For expectations, the percentiles are obviously lower: 48th percentile for business conditions expected, 49th percentile for employment conditions expected and 43rd percentile for income expected. Buying plans are low especially for houses, the bottom 10 percentile of their range. However, nearly everybody is planning to buy an appliance as that gauge stands in the 95th percentile of its range. 
What we have is a weak month for confidence. The weakness still has not driven the levels of the index to a depressing state, it was just a large monthly decline. Now we look to the future to see if the weakness unwinds and how rapidly.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
Conference Board Consumer Confidence: Current Condition Trends by Region
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="grey4">
<td colspan="7">Regional Confidence from Oct-03 to Jan-07</td>
<td>% Above</td>
<td>% Below</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Jun-07</td>
<td>May-07</td>
<td>Yr Ago</td>
<td>% Y/Y</td>
<td>Recsn-End</td>
<td>Pre-Recsn</td>
<td>Recsn-End</td>
<td>Pre-Recsn</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">New England</td>
<td>116.9</td>
<td>113.8</td>
<td>114.8</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>112.3</td>
<td>207.1</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>-43.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">MidAtlantic</td>
<td>106.9</td>
<td>117.0</td>
<td>101.8</td>
<td>5.0%</td>
<td>88.7</td>
<td>150.7</td>
<td>20.5%</td>
<td>-29.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">East North Central</td>
<td>73.9</td>
<td>86.3</td>
<td>81.0</td>
<td>-8.8%</td>
<td>92.8</td>
<td>175.6</td>
<td>-20.4%</td>
<td>-57.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">West North Central</td>
<td>131.5</td>
<td>136.0</td>
<td>130.2</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>126.9</td>
<td>172.8</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>-23.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">South Atlantic</td>
<td>129.5</td>
<td>144.3</td>
<td>134.5</td>
<td>-3.7%</td>
<td>106.1</td>
<td>178.9</td>
<td>22.1%</td>
<td>-27.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">East South Central</td>
<td>113.6</td>
<td>130.5</td>
<td>122.7</td>
<td>-7.4%</td>
<td>92.5</td>
<td>146.9</td>
<td>22.8%</td>
<td>-22.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">West South Central</td>
<td>138.0</td>
<td>167.4</td>
<td>146.4</td>
<td>-5.7%</td>
<td>113.2</td>
<td>177.2</td>
<td>21.9%</td>
<td>-22.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Mountain</td>
<td>151.8</td>
<td>177.4</td>
<td>156.7</td>
<td>-3.1%</td>
<td>108.7</td>
<td>178.9</td>
<td>39.7%</td>
<td>-15.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">Pacific</td>
<td>145.9</td>
<td>167.4</td>
<td>149.9</td>
<td>-2.7%</td>
<td>87.9</td>
<td>169.7</td>
<td>66.0%</td>
<td>-14.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td colspan="9">Pre-recession is 1998-2000</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td colspan="9">Percentage of Regions with confidence improving</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey4">
<td class="firstcol">CurrCond improving</td>
<td>Jun-07</td>
<td>May-07</td>
<td>Apr-07</td>
<td>Mar-07</td>
<td>Nov-06</td>
<td>Oct-06</td>
<td>Sep-06</td>
<td>Aug-06</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">MO/MO or as noted</td>
<td>11.1%</td>
<td>66.7%</td>
<td>11.1%</td>
<td>55.6%</td>
<td>88.9%</td>
<td>22.2%</td>
<td>55.6%</td>
<td>33.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
Conference Board Components for Consumer Confidence
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Current</td>
<td>Max/Oct&#39;03</td>
<td>Min/Oct&#39;03</td>
<td>Year Ago</td>
<td>Percentile</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Confidence Index</td>
<td>103.9</td>
<td>111.2</td>
<td>61.4</td>
<td>105.4</td>
<td>85.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Present Situation</td>
<td>127.9</td>
<td>138.5</td>
<td>59.7</td>
<td>132.2</td>
<td>86.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Expectations</td>
<td>87.9</td>
<td>110.2</td>
<td>61.4</td>
<td>87.5</td>
<td>54.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Jun-07</td>
<td colspan="2">Percentile standing</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Diffusion</td>
<td>Overall</td>
<td>Good</td>
<td>Bad</td>
<td>Normal</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Present Situation</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>86.5%</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Business Conditions</td>
<td>55.5</td>
<td>80.5%</td>
<td>85.7%</td>
<td>11.5%</td>
<td>36.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Employment</td>
<td>53.0</td>
<td>79.3%</td>
<td>83.8%</td>
<td>12.6%</td>
<td>18.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Expectations</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>54.3%</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Business Conditions</td>
<td>52.6</td>
<td>38.8%</td>
<td>20.7%</td>
<td>34.8%</td>
<td>68.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Employment</td>
<td>48.5</td>
<td>49.2%</td>
<td>20.7%</td>
<td>34.8%</td>
<td>68.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Income</td>
<td>55.0</td>
<td>43.8%</td>
<td>42.0%</td>
<td>23.0%</td>
<td>71.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">Buying plans</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Automobile</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>34.1%</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">House</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>10.5%</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Major Appliance</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>96.9%</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="6">Percentile of range since Oct 2003 to date. 100% is High; 0% is Low</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The present situation index is doing its leap frog advance thing and this month is one of its landing hops not an advancing hop. Expectations have moved to a weak flat-lining mode as they often do at mature stages of an expansion. If [...]

Not a Shining Moment for U.S. Consumer Confidence

<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/070626f.jpg" width="353">
Housing is still in the grip of a downtrend but prices are not plunging or even weakening further nor are sales trends worsening; in fact, they are showing some signs of stability. Housing rebounded in April and maintained most of its gain in May - a good sign for the sector. Question: How bad is this??<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070626g.jpg" width="353">
A tale of two suburbs? Maybe it&#146;s not of two cities but definitely a tale of two suburbs &#150; one affluent and one not. Average house prices are up and strongly at 6.5% year/year. Yes, some of that owes to a weak result a year ago, but not all of it. And year/year price declines for new homes are not very common. Median prices are off for two months running and the last year/year decline was in September of 2006. For average prices, they fell year/year in April 2007; they last fell year/year in November 2006. Obviously high-priced homes are faring better in this housing cycle.
Stability in sales by region is shown in the table below. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
New Single Family Home Sales
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="grey4">
<td colspan="6">Momentum: Annualized Rates Of Change</td>
<td colspan="2">Prices</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td class="firstcol">As of:</td>
<td>Total</td>
<td>Northeast</td>
<td>Midwest</td>
<td>South</td>
<td>West</td>
<td>Median</td>
<td>Average</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td class="firstcol">May.07</td>
<td colspan="7">Month-to-month percent change</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">May.07</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>-11.0%</td>
<td>30.8%</td>
<td>-7.3%</td>
<td>-1.9%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>4.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">Apr.07</td>
<td>12.5%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>-7.9%</td>
<td>22.7%</td>
<td>8.1%</td>
<td>-9.9%</td>
<td>-7.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">Mar.07</td>
<td>-1.5%</td>
<td>91.3%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>-10.2%</td>
<td>-3.9%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey2">
<td colspan="8">Annualized Rates</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey3">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Total</td>
<td> Northeast</td>
<td>Midwest</td>
<td>South</td>
<td>West</td>
<td>Median</td>
<td>Average</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">3-Mo</td>
<td>35.7%</td>
<td>304.3%</td>
<td>81.9%</td>
<td>8.7%</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
<td>-21.5%</td>
<td>-10.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">6-Mo</td>
<td>-14.6%</td>
<td>53.1%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>-23.9%</td>
<td>-23.6%</td>
<td>-3.3%</td>
<td>15.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="grey1">
<td class="firstcol">1-Yr</td>
<td>-15.8%</td>
<td>19.1%</td>
<td>-14.5%</td>
<td>-17.9%</td>
<td>-21.1%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Housing is still in the grip of a downtrend but prices are not plunging or even weakening further nor are sales trends worsening; in fact, they are showing some signs of stability. Housing rebounded in April and maintained most of its [...]

Housing Slowing Bouncing Maintaining Its Rise…Good Sign

<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/070626a.jpg" width="353">
German export and import inflation is less more subdued than are domestic trends. 
German export and import prices excluding energy flared to peaks in the second half of 2006. But now as they subside, it is Germany domestic excluding energy inflation that has flared. 
German PPI prices excluding energy has flared in early 2007 then showed some sign of settling down. It is the German CPI where prices look to be still building. By May nonpetroleum import prices were rising at the same pace as CPI ex energy prices. The CPI ex-energy seems to have peaked in May but not yet declined. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
German International and Domestic Inflation Trends
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="3">% m/m</td>
<td colspan="4">% SAAR</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">SA</td>
<td>May-07</td>
<td>Apr-07</td>
<td>Mar-07</td>
<td>3-Mo</td>
<td>6-Mo</td>
<td>12-Mo</td>
<td>Yr-Ago</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Export Prices</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Import Prices</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">NSA</td>
<td>&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">Exports excl Petroleum</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Imports excl Petroleum</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Memo: SA</td>
<td>&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">CPI</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">CPI excl Energy</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">PPI</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">PPI excl Energy</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

German export and import inflation is less more subdued than are domestic trends. German export and import prices excluding energy flared to peaks in the second half of 2006. But now as they subside, it is Germany domestic excluding [...]

German Export and Import Price Inflation

US and China big leaders in adoption of AI models

Robust US demand for advanced technology products

China's export growth rotating away from the US

More pronounced upward revisions in countries more exposed to AI investment

Stable job openings and hiring rates point to cautious hiring

Global freight costs are on the rise while supply chain pressures are contained

Accelerating positive economic surprises in the G10 are boosting the global economy

Considerably more monetary ease expected from US and UK as Japan tightens

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

PMIs show still-elevated but slowing US inflation

AI boosting US investment in data centers

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

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

US financial markets have gotten used to elevated policy uncertainty

FOMC now expects more rate cuts going forward than in June

China gaining ASEAN exports while US exports slump

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

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

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

Equity market exuberance outpacing macroeconomic data

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

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

Service Health

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

London

Singapore

Tokyo

New York

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Featured Data Additions

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

Andrew Cates

**The Global Monetary Policy Consensus**
The latest Blue Chip Financial Forecasts survey points to a notably more balanced global monetary policy outlook over the coming year. In contrast to the pronounced easing bias that dominated much of the past two years, expectations are now more symmetric, with a similar number of central banks projected to raise rates as to ease policy. Japan is seen delivering further tightening, while Canada is expected to initiate an interest rate hike in coming months. In Australia’s case, this tightening guidance was reinforced this week, with the Reserve Bank lifting its policy rate by 25 basis points. Elsewhere, and in contrast, the euro area, UK and US are expected to move in the opposite direction.

260205Z1.jpg

**US manufacturing activity**
The second chart underscores the recent improvement in US economic momentum, highlighted by an unexpected surge in the January ISM manufacturing PMI. After spending much of the past year hovering below the 50 threshold consistent with stagnation, the index jumped sharply back into expansionary territory, signalling a renewed pickup in industrial activity. This rebound has coincided with a broader run of stronger-than-anticipated US economic data, as reflected in the upswing in the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index. Together, these developments point to a US economy that continues to display notable resilience, complicating expectations of monetary easing in the near term.

260205Z2.jpg

**US Bank Lending Standards and Financial Stress** 
The next chart turns to US financial conditions, highlighting the latest readings from the Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey. The net proportion of banks tightening lending standards on corporate loans and mortgages is now more modest by historical standards, and well below the extremes seen during past episodes of financial stress. Some easing in credit headwinds has occurred alongside relatively subdued readings on the OFR Financial Stress Index, which continues to hover below its long-run average. Together, these indicators suggest that the US financial system has continued to avoid the kind of acute stress typically associated with sharp slowdowns in credit availability—helping to underpin the recent resilience in economic activity.

260205Z3.jpg

**Semiconductor Sales**
The fourth chart highlights the renewed surge in global semiconductor sales, with momentum strengthening sharply over recent months across the Americas, China and the broader Asia-Pacific region. After the cyclical downturn in 2022–23, sales have rebounded to fresh highs, reflecting a powerful revival in demand for advanced chips and related technologies. This upswing has taken place amid intense investor preoccupation with artificial intelligence, with expectations that AI adoption will drive a sustained wave of capital spending on data centres, cloud infrastructure and high-performance computing. In contrast, semiconductor sales in Europe remain comparatively subdued, reflecting the region’s smaller footprint in high-end chip manufacturing, weaker industrial demand, and the ongoing impact of slower economic growth. While semiconductors are inherently cyclical, markets have increasingly interpreted the current rebound elsewhere as structural rather than purely cyclical—underpinned by the belief that AI represents a transformative and durable source of demand growth.

260205Z4.jpg

**Large-Scale AI Models**
The next chart illustrates the rapid proliferation of large-scale AI models globally, with newly updated data for 2025 pointing to a further sharp acceleration in development activity. The United States continues to lead by a wide margin, while China has also seen a steep rise in model deployment in recent years, underscoring the intensifying technological competition between the two economies. Growth in the UK and other regions has been more modest by comparison, highlighting the increasingly concentrated nature of AI innovation. Taken together with the surge in semiconductor sales, these trends help explain the market’s strong preoccupation with AI as a potential driver of future productivity and investment cycles—although the geographic concentration of activity also raises questions about the uneven distribution of any resulting economic gains.

260205Z5.jpg

**An AI Bubble?** 
The final chart draws on the latest Blue Chip Financial Forecasts special questions, highlighting market participants’ perceptions of the economic gains likely to be delivered by artificial intelligence. While a sizeable share of respondents still believe that financial markets may be overestimating AI’s potential benefits, an increasing proportion now judge current expectations to be broadly accurate, with only a small minority viewing the gains as underestimated. Notably, this represents a softening in scepticism compared with the survey results from last month, when concerns about excessive market optimism were more pronounced. The shift suggests a growing acceptance that AI-related investment and innovation could translate into meaningful economic impacts—though uncertainty remains high around the scale, timing and distribution of these gains.

260205Z6.jpg

Financial markets have experienced renewed gyrations in recent weeks, as shifting geopolitical risks, questions around Federal Reserve independence, renewed talk of US dollar “debasement,” and ongoing enthusiasm surrounding artificial intelligence have combined to drive volatility across asset classes. These cross-currents have also contributed to a degree of rotation away from high-flying technology stocks, as investors reassess valuations and the timing of anticipated AI-driven gains. Against this backdrop, the charts in this week’s COTW highlight several important themes. Policy rate expectations now appear more balanced globally, marking a clear shift away from the one-sided easing bias of the past two years (chart 1), even as resilient US data—underscored by the unexpected jump in the January ISM index and a run of positive economic surprises—continues to complicate the outlook for monetary easing (chart 2). At the same time, US financial conditions remain relatively benign, with limited evidence of widespread credit stress or aggressive tightening in lending standards (chart 3). Meanwhile, the sharp rebound in semiconductor sales and the accelerating rollout of large-scale AI models underscore why investors remain so focused on the AI narrative, even as Europe lags behind due to weaker industrial momentum and a smaller footprint in advanced chip production (charts 4 and 5). Finally, while some scepticism about AI’s ultimate economic impact persists, the latest survey results suggest a moderation in concerns that markets are materially overestimating its gains (chart 6). Taken together, these developments paint a picture of a US economy that remains more resilient than many had anticipated, set against a financial landscape increasingly shaped by powerful—if sometimes competing—narratives around geopolitics, policy, and technological transformation.

Charts of the Week: Balanced Policy, Resilient Data and AI Narratives

260206E.jpg

With the December report, Germany’s production and some of the early European industrial production data reveal a good deal of chaos in terms of the embedded trends. On the month, German industrial production fell by 1.9%, with consumer goods output up by 0.5%, capital goods output falling by 5.3%, and intermediate goods output falling by 1.2%. Among the early reporters in the monetary union—France, Spain, and Portugal—only Spain showed an increase in manufacturing IP in December; however, Spanish industrial production is notoriously volatile.

**Broader IP trends in Germany and elsewhere in Europe**
As for other early industrial production reporters, both Sweden and Norway showed strong-to-solid gains in December and each of them showed two-months of gains in a row. Beyond that, sequential growth rates from 12-months to six-months to three-months show accelerating growth in German consumer goods output against decelerating growth for intermediate goods. Real manufacturing output and real sales show mixed results- no clear trends; however, real manufacturing orders in Germany are off the map strong. 

**German manufacturing/industrial Surveys**
German industrial surveys from the IFO for manufacturing shows persistent weakening as well as for IFO manufacturing expectations, and in the EU Commission industrial index in the last three months. More broadly, Germany shows some modest but ongoing step up all of these based on average levels from 12-months to six-months to three-months for IFO expectations and the EU Commission industrial readings with mixed results for other survey readings.

**IP trends in Europe**
For the early reporting EMU members France, Spain, and Portugal, who report industrial production trends, each show mixed monthly trends against ongoing decelerations for manufacturing output over the broader sequential periods (12-month, to 6-month, to 3-month). However, for other Europe, Sweden and Norway, manufacturing trends are steadily accelerating on this broader timeline.

**A feeling of ‘Deja- What?’**
These combinations of opposed trends mixed with a lack of trends leave us with this sense of confusion about what's going on in manufacturing. For Germany, the extreme strength in orders is reassuring since orders should be forward-looking rather than backward-looking or even contemporaneous. But orders can also be a fickle series and so we'll have to watch it to see if the trends for German orders hold up.

**Current quarter-What’s been happening now**
In addition, current quarter growth for Germany actually looks quite good with industrial production up 3.7% at an annual rate in the current quarter, led by output increases in manufacturing against a decline in the intermediate goods output. Real orders in the quarter are surging at a 44% growth rate, while real sales in manufacturing only had a 0.1% uptick at an annual rate. The industrial indicators for Germany in the quarter show weakness or flatness with the only exception being IFO manufacturing expectations that advanced by a small amount. The three EMU members who report industrial production data show positive growth in the just-completed quarter except for Portugal where industrial production is falling at a 2.9% rate in the fourth quarter. Sweden and Norway, European countries but not monetary union members, show a strong 22% annual rate gain in Sweden against the 3% annual rate decline in Norway.

260206.jpg

**Rankings**
**How growth rates stack up…**
Moving away from short-term trends, the rankings of growth rates of these various metrics using 12-month growth rates on data back to 2006, show below-median growth rates for German industrial production and all three of its major sectors. All of them have rankings below the 50% mark where the median resides. Germany’s manufacturing output growth rate is below its median as is the growth of real sales; and once again real manufacturing orders break out and show a stunning 90th percentile standing, extremely strong compared to other growth rates on this period.

**Indicator rankings are poor**
However, the survey based industrial indicators for Germany, ranked based on their index levels, are all extremely weak and much weaker than German sector or other German metrics. The strongest indicator reading is the 29th percentile standing for IFO manufacturing expectations while the current ZEW index, IFO manufacturing index, and the EU Commission industrial readings, all reside below their 15th percentile. The survey rankings suggest that industrial sentiment is in much worse shape than activity and growth.

**IP elsewhere in Europe**
However, the growth ranking of manufacturing industrial production for the reporting EMU members and other European members are all quite solid, with percentile standings ranging from the 66th up to the 93rd percentile.

**Summing up**
From these data, Germany emerges as the weak economy compared with historic norms based on industrial production growth and indicator readings. However, there's a glimpse of positivity from the growth of real orders, and at the same time, some concern about ongoing sentiment for manufacturing in Germany as distinct from actual performance.

Germany

German IP Reveals Chaotic Trends

Winnie Tapasanun

260205X15.jpg

260205Y15.jpg

**Total job openings** fell 5.6% m/m (-12.9% y/y) to 6.542 million in December after a downwardly revised 7.0% decline to 6.928 million in November (previously -4.1% m/m; 7.146 million), according to the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. December marked the third consecutive m/m fall and the lowest level since September 2020. The job openings rate declined to 3.9% in December, the lowest since April 2020, from 4.2% in November, remaining below a record-high 7.4% in March 2022. This rate is calculated as the ratio of job openings to total nonfarm employment plus openings. Significantly, the drop in job openings also lowered the **ratio of job openings to unemployed individuals** to 0.872 in December—the lowest since March 2021—from 0.890 in November, down from 1.085 in December 2024 and a pre-pandemic 1.211 in February 2020. A reading of 0.872 implies there were about 0.87 open jobs per unemployed person—indicating fewer openings than unemployed workers. December was the fifth time in six months that this ratio remained below 1.0.

**Private sector job openings** fell 6.8% (-12.5% y/y) to 5.804 million in December after a 6.6% fall to 6.227 million in November, registering the third successive m/m decline and the lowest level since September 2020. The private sector job openings rate fell to 4.1% in December, the lowest since April 2020, from 4.4% in November. The December m/m decline in private sector openings reflected drops of 27.7% (-36.9% y/y) in financial activities, 20.2% (-25.5% y/y) in professional & business services, 14.4% (-5.1% y/y) in trade, transportation & utilities, and 5.2% (-12.4% y/y) in private educational & health services. To the upside, private sector openings in the following categories rose m/m in December: other services (21.1%; 11.0% y/y), mining & lodging (17.6%; 0.0% y/y), information (13.5%; -4.7% y/y), manufacturing (8.5%; 0.5% y/y), leisure & hospitality (7.5%; -17.2% y/y), and construction (2.8%; 42.4% y/y). Meanwhile, government job openings rose 5.3% (-15.6% y/y) in December, the first m/m rise in three months, after a 10.6% drop in November.

**Total hiring** rebounded 3.4% (-1.5% y/y) to 5.293 million in December, the first m/m increase since September, following a 4.6% decrease to 5.121 million in November. The hiring rate edged up to 3.3% in December from 3.2% in November, though it remained below pre-pandemic levels. **Private sector hiring** rose 3.1% (-0.4% y/y) to 4.978 million in December, the third m/m rise in four months, after a 4.0% decline to 4.826 million in November. The private sector hiring rate rose to 3.7% in December from 3.5% in November, the same as in October and September. The December m/m increase in private sector hiring was led by a 32.1% jump (42.3% y/y) in information, followed by gains of 24.0% (-4.6% y/y) in financial activities, 23.5% (0.0% y/y) in mining & lodging, 6.5% (-4.8% y/y) in private educational & health services, 4.2% (-4.9% y/y) in trade, transportation & utilities, 3.6% (6.1% y/y) in construction, 3.4% (7.9% y/y) in leisure & hospitality, and 1.8% (-4.3% y/y) in manufacturing. To the downside, private sector hiring in professional & business services (-5.2%; +0.5% y/y) and other services (-4.3%; -16.5% y/y) declined m/m in December. Meanwhile, government hiring rebounded 6.4% (-16.3% y/y) in December, the first m/m rise since September, following a 13.5% drop in November.

**Total separations** rose 2.1% (3.3% y/y) to 5.251 million in December after a 1.5% rise to 5.144 million in November, marking the third m/m increase in four months and the highest level since September. The total separations rate edged up to 3.3% after holding at 3.2% in November and October. Private sector separations rose 1.6% (4.2% y/y) to 4.932 million in December, the highest level since June, while government sector separations jumped 10.4% (-9.1% y/y) to 319,000 following two consecutive m/m declines. **Total quits** (voluntary separations initiated by the employee) increased 0.3% (3.5% y/y) to 3.204 million in December, the third m/m rise in four months and the highest level since June, after a 7.4% rebound in November. The quits rate (a measure of workers’ willingness or ability to leave jobs) held at 2.0% in December and November, slightly below 2.3% in February 2020. Private sector quits eased 0.2% (+4.5% y/y) following an 8.4% November rebound. **Layoffs and discharges** (involuntary separations initiated by the employer) increased 3.6% (5.6% y/y) to 1.762 million in December, up for the third time in four months, after an 8.1% drop in November. The layoffs & discharges rate remained at 1.1% in December and November, marginally below 1.3% in February 2020. Private sector layoffs grew 4.3% (7.8% y/y) following a 7.3% November decrease.

The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data are available in Haver’s **USECON** database.

260205C15.jpg

260205D15.jpg

- Job openings down 5.6% (-12.9% y/y) to 6.542 mil., third straight m/m decline.
- Hiring up 3.4% (-1.5% y/y) to 5.293 mil., first m/m increase since September.
- Separations rise to a three-month high; quits reach a six-month high; layoffs rebound.

U.S. JOLTS: Openings Drop to Lowest Level Since Sept. ’20; Hiring Rebounds in December

Sandy Batten

260205A2.jpg

260205B2.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance jumped 22,000 to 231,000 in the week ended January 31 following an unrevised 209,000 in the prior week. The four-week average rose to 212,250 from 206,250. The Action Economics Forecast Survey looked for 213,000 claims to have been filed. Winter Storm Fern and the accompanying very cold temperatures could have provided a temporary boost. Historically speaking, claims remain at low levels.

The total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries—also known as “continuing claims”—increased by 25,000 to 1.844 million in the week ending January 24, from a downwardly revised 1.819 million in the prior week (previously 1.827 million). The insured unemployment rate remained at 1.2% in the week of January 24, unchanged from the previous eight weeks.

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ending January 17, the highest unemployment rates were in Rhode Island (2.83%), New Jersey (2.77%), Massachusetts (2.67%), Washington (2.54%), and Minnesota (2.45%). The lowest rates were in Florida (0.30%), North Carolina (0.42%), Louisiana (0.43%), Alabama (0.46%), and Arkansas (0.47). Rates in other notable states include Illinois (2.15%), California, (2.08%), New York (2.02%), Pennsylvania (1.91%), and Texas (1.09%). 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.

260205C2.jpg

260205D2.jpg

- New claims jumped 22,000 to 231,000, the highest level since December 6.
- Continuing claims rose to 1.844 million from 1.819 million.

U.S. Initial Unemployment Claims Surged in Latest Week

260205E.jpg

German real orders in December adjusted for inflation rose strongly again, gaining 7.8% month-to-month after rising 5.7% month-to-month in November. Foreign orders were up by 5.6% in December compared to 5.2% in November. Domestic orders surged by 10.7% in December after rising 6.4% in November and 10% in October.

**Real sales**
Real sales were mixed in December with overall sales falling 1.4% month-to-month mostly on weakness in capital goods sales.

**Broad categorical acceleration**
Many flows are accelerating this month. Sequential growth rates show acceleration. Total real orders accelerate from a year ago, to the current year, to six-months, and to three-months. Sales growth rates for consumer goods, consumer nondurables, and intermediate goods all show accelerations in gear. The exceptions are foreign orders that are not as strong over six months compared to their 12-month growth. And on the sales side, consumer durables sales and capital goods sales are weak.

**Quarter-to-quarter**
Quarterly annualized growth is complete for Q4 with this report. Foreign orders are the ‘weak flow’ expanding at a 13.6% annual rate – certainly not a weak growth rate. But domestic real orders are up at an astounding 101.9% annual rate. The net impact on the total real orders growth is to lift it to a pace of 44.1%. 

**Order ranking is very strong**
The table provides two rankings: one based on the level of variables and the other based on its year-on-year growth. The rankings this month for real orders overall, foreign, and domestic orders all reside in their top 80th to 90th percentiles- extremely strong based on level or growth. Sales do not follow suit. This gives us some reason to suspect that there is some lumpiness involved in the manufacturing data as distinct from strength. That will be something to watch. Overall mining and manufacturing sales growth is essentially at its historic median at a rank of 49.8. However, capital goods, intermediate goods and manufacturing sales all have rankings at or above their medians - as high as a 61-percentile standing for capital goods.

**Industrial confidence**
Industrial confidence for Germany, France, Italy and Spain (the EU’s big-four economies) show rankings based on these survey levels that are much lower at the 11th percentile for Germany, the 42nd and 36th percentiles, for France and Italy, respectively. Spain scores better with a 61.8 percentile standing on its industrial confidence measure. 

On balance, there is now an accelerating profile that is broad in sales trends and especially strong order trends. Perhaps Europe, under the pressure to stimulate its miliary capabilities, has a core of demand to help drive output ahead more consistently. This is something to watch in the coming months.

Economy in Brief: 2007

Jump to:

France’s Service and Industry Sector Outlook Strong

U.S. Durable Goods Month Down, Trends Still Up - but for How Long?

U.S. Durable Goods Month Down, Trends Still Up - but for How Long?

Business and Consumer Confidence in Italy and the Netherlands

Not a Shining Moment for U.S. Consumer Confidence

Housing Slowing Bouncing Maintaining Its Rise…Good Sign

German Export and Import Price Inflation

Business and Consumer Confidence in Italy and the Netherlands