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/060601b.jpg" width="353">
Non-farm labor productivity growth during 1Q &#39;06 was revised up to 3.7% from the 3.2% reported last month. The updated figure fell short of Consensus expectations for a revision to 4.0%.
Faster growth in output accounted for the revision and it is now estimated to have risen 6.5% (4.2% y/y) versus the earlier estimate of 5.8% growth. The estimate of hours worked was little changed at 2.7% (1.7% y/y).
Unit labor cost growth was revised down sharply to 1.6% reflecting the upward revision to productivity as well as a downward revision to compensation growth to 5.3%. Cost pressure in 4Q &#39;05 also was revised down sharply due to a revised decline in compensation.
Factory sector productivity growth was slightly slower than initially estimated at 3.8% (4.0% y/y) versus the initial estimate of 4.2%. As a result of an upward revision to compensation growth to 1.9% (2.1% y/y) from 1.5%, unit labor costs in the factory sector only declined 1.9% (-1.8% y/y) instead of the initial estimate of a 2.6% drop.
A Leaner, More Skilled U.S. Manufacturing Workforce from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is available <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci12-2.pdf">here</a>.
This first estimate of nonfinancial corporate sector productivity indicated a 3.7% (3.7% y/y) gain after 2.4% growth during 4Q. Unit labor costs rose 1.3% q/q but since the moderate rise followed a 3.2% 4Q decline, costs remained down 0.8% from the year earlier level.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EC/@EC02/@EC02.HTM">Non-farm Business Sector</a> (SAAR)</th>
<th scope="col">1Q&#39; 06 (Revised</th>
<th scope="col">1Q &#39;06</th>
<th scope="col">4Q &#39;05</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">Output per Hour</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Compensation per Hour</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unit Labor Costs</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Non-farm labor productivity growth during 1Q '06 was revised up to 3.7% from the 3.2% reported last month. The updated figure fell short of Consensus expectations for a revision to 4.0%. Faster growth in output accounted for the [...]

1Q U.S. Productivity Revised Up

Home prices as measured by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) rose another 2.0% last quarter. The increase was the slowest after rising between 2.5% and 4.5% each quarter for two years. The OFHEO house price [...]

Home Prices Rose More Slowly

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/060531c.jpg" width="353">
Economic growth in South Asia was firm in Q1, according to reports out today from government statistics offices in India, Malaysia and Philippines. India, especially, with a 9.3% year/year gain in GDP, saw its strongest quarter since the end of 2003. In Malaysia, growth appears uneventful, with year-on-year gains hovering between 5% and 7%, but after the steep recession of 1998 and the slowdown in 2001, this looks attractive. In the Philippines, the latest quarter was up a modest 0.8% from Q4 but 5.5% from the year earlier. This pace compares to a 4.9% average over the past 5 years. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060531d.jpg" width="353">
In India, agriculture continues to dominate the economy, although as seen in the second graph, the trade and transport sector surpassed it in 2002; that industrial segment also continues to grow rapidly now, surging 12.9% in Q1. The same group also includes hotels and communications; we&#39;d suspect that as the Indian infrastructure builds, &quot;communications&quot; would be expanding rapidly. The same holds for construction; it is smaller in absolute size, but has sustained better than 10% average growth for the last five years. Other sectors are chasing along, too. Manufacturing gained 8.9% over the last four quarters, while finance, insurance and business services was up 10.8%.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060531e.jpg" width="353">
The Malaysian economy has the interesting feature that exports are larger than total GDP -- by a sizable amount. In Q1, exports were 82.0 billion ringgit (1987 prices) while GDP was 68.1 billion. See the third graph. Imports are sizable too, of course, at 77.8 billion ringgit. So goods and services are imported into the country, processed, and shipped out. This chain of events yielded GDP growth of 2.2% in Q1 alone (from Q4), the largest single quarter since early 2000. The domestic economy is fairly vibrant; it expanded 5.7% in the quarter, pushed by an 11.1% surge in fixed investment. But it is also more volatile, with Q4 down 3.7%.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060531f.jpg" width="353">
In the Philippines, quarterly movements in individual sectors are frequently uneven. In Q1, total GDP slowed to 0.8% from 1.4% growth in Q4. Agriculture, mining, manufacturing, trade and real estate contributed to the slowing, transportation and private services were steady to somewhat slower, but construction, finance and government picked up considerably. On the demand side, total domestic demand accelerated to 1.4% growth from -0.1% in Q4; net exports also added to growth through a much smaller deficit. But the statistical discrepancy turned sharply negative, so it is hard to identify the genuine demand-side source of the slower pace in total GDP. At the same time, gains in prior quarters meant, as noted above, that the overall economy still saw 5.3% year-on-year growth. See in the last graph how the lurches in quarter-to-quarter performance still produce the respectable yearly pace.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">GDP: % Changes*</th>
<th scope="col">Q1 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Year/ Year</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">India</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>9.3</td>
<td>8.2</td>
<td>7.3</td>
<td>7.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing </td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>8.9</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>7.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Trade, Hotels,&nbsp; Transport, Etc.</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>12.9</td>
<td>10.9</td>
<td>11.4</td>
<td>10.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Finance, Business Services, Etc.</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>10.8</td>
<td>9.7</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>4.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Malaysia</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>5.3</td>
<td>5.2</td>
<td>7.2</td>
<td>5.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Philippines</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>6.2</td>
<td>4.9</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Economic growth in South Asia was firm in Q1, according to reports out today from government statistics offices in India, Malaysia and Philippines. India, especially, with a 9.3% year/year gain in GDP, saw its strongest quarter since [...]

Q1 GDP Strong in India; Growth Uneven but on Trend in Malaysia & the Philippines

<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/060531g.jpg" width="353">
The Nat&#39;l Employment Report published by ADP, the payroll processors for many employers, indicated that nonfarm private payrolls in May increased 122,000.
For April, a 178,000 rise in ADP&#39;s nonfarm private payrolls was accompanied by a 131,000 rise private nonfarm payrolls as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The May figure from BLS will be published Friday.
ADP has compiled the estimate from its database of individual companies&#39; payroll information. Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, the St. Louis economic consulting firm, developed the methodology for transforming the raw data into an economic indicator.
According to ADP and Macro Advisers, the correlation between the monthly percentage change in the ADP estimate and that in the BLS data is 0.90.
The ADP National Employment Report data is maintained in Haver&#39;s USECON database; historical data go back to December 2000. The figures in this report cover only private sector jobs and exclude employment in the public sector, which grew an average of 11,333 per month over the last year.
The full ADP National Employment Report can be found <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/ADP_NER_Report_May.pdf">here</a>, and the ADP methodology is explained <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/ADPNERMethodology.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/USECON/@EB/@EB25/@EB25.HTM">LAXEPA@USECON</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>
<td class="firstcol">Nonfarm Private Payroll Employment (Chg.)</td>
<td>122,000</td>
<td>178,000</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Nat'l Employment Report published by ADP, the payroll processors for many employers, indicated that nonfarm private payrolls in May increased 122,000. For April, a 178,000 rise in ADP's nonfarm private payrolls was accompanied by [...]

ADP Nat'l Employment Report: Slimmer Gain in May Payrolls

<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/060531a.jpg" width="353">
The total number of mortgage applications fell another 1.9% last week on the heels of the prior week&#39;s 6.0% decline. The weakness dropped the average level in May 2.2% below April and 30.0% below last June.
Purchase applications fell another 0.2% w/w after the 7.1% w/w drop the prior week. That lowered the May average 0.8% versus April and 17.5% versus last July.
During the last ten years there has been a negative 80% correlation between the interest rate level on 30-year financing and purchase applications while during those years there has been a 54% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing single family home sales.
A 4.8% w/w drop in applications to refinance added to the 4.3% decline during the prior week. That lowered the May level 4.1% below the April average which fell 4.1% from March. The May level was 43.8% below last June.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage backed up two basis points to 6.86% and left the May average at 6.86%, up sharply from the 5.81% low last June. The rate on 15-year financing was stable at 6.52%. Interest rates on 15 and 30 year mortgages are closely correlated (&gt;90%) with the rate on 10 year Treasury securities and during the last ten years there has been a (negative) 82% correlation between purchase applications and the effective rate on a 30-Year mortgage.
The Mortgage Bankers Association surveys between 20 to 35 of the top lenders in the U.S. housing industry to derive its refinance, purchase and market indexes. The weekly survey accounts for more than 40% of all applications processed each week by mortgage lenders. Visit the Mortgage Bankers Association site <a href="http://www.mbaa.org">here</a>.
Inversion, a speech by St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President William Poole, can be found <a href="http://www.stlouisfed.org/news/speeches/2006/05_18_06.htm"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYW/@S5/@S5.HTM">MBA Mortgage Applications (3/16/90=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">05/26/06</th>
<th scope="col">05/19/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>541.9</td>
<td>552.6</td>
<td>-23.6%</td>
<td>708.6</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>395.5</td>
<td>396.4</td>
<td>-14.5%</td>
<td>470.9</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>1,409.0</td>
<td>1,480.5</td>
<td>-34.2%</td>
<td>2,092.3</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The total number of mortgage applications fell another 1.9% last week on the heels of the prior week's 6.0% decline. The weakness dropped the average level in May 2.2% below April and 30.0% below last June. Purchase applications fell [...]

Mortgage Applications Off

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060531b.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales fell sharply last week. The 1.0% w/w decline followed a similar 0.8% drop the prior week, reported the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS.
Declines during three of the four weeks this month pulled the average level of May sales down 0.6% from the April average which rose 1.6% from March. During the last ten years there has been a 47% correlation between the y/y change in chain store sales and the change in nonauto retail sales less gasoline.
The ICSC-UBS retail chain-store sales index is constructed using the same-store sales (stores open for one year) reported by 78 stores of seven retailers: Dayton Hudson, Federated, Kmart, May, J.C. Penney, Sears and Wal-Mart.
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC-UBS continued its recent decline with another 0.6% drop. The indicator was down 2.7% versus one year ago and 4.5% from the recent peak in early January.
Inflation, Banking and Economic Growth from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland can be found <a href="http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/com2006/0515.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/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">05/27/06</th>
<th scope="col">05/20/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>467.5</td>
<td>472.0</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Chain store sales fell sharply last week. The 1.0% w/w decline followed a similar 0.8% drop the prior week, reported the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS. Declines during three of the four weeks this month pulled [...]

Chain Store Sales Fell Sharply

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060531g.jpg" width="353">
The Nat&#39;l Employment Report published by ADP, the payroll processors for many employers, indicated that nonfarm private payrolls in May increased 122,000.
For April, a 178,000 rise in ADP&#39;s nonfarm private payrolls was accompanied by a 131,000 rise private nonfarm payrolls as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The May figure from BLS will be published Friday.
ADP has compiled the estimate from its database of individual companies&#39; payroll information. Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, the St. Louis economic consulting firm, developed the methodology for transforming the raw data into an economic indicator.
According to ADP and Macro Advisers, the correlation between the monthly percentage change in the ADP estimate and that in the BLS data is 0.90.
The ADP National Employment Report data is maintained in Haver&#39;s USECON database; historical data go back to December 2000. The figures in this report cover only private sector jobs and exclude employment in the public sector, which grew an average of 11,333 per month over the last year.
The full ADP National Employment Report can be found <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/ADP_NER_Report_May.pdf">here</a>, and the ADP methodology is explained <a href="http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/ADPNERMethodology.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/USECON/@EB/@EB25/@EB25.HTM">LAXEPA@USECON</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>
<td class="firstcol">Nonfarm Private Payroll Employment (Chg.)</td>
<td>122,000</td>
<td>178,000</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Chain Store Sales Fell Sharply 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> May 31, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060531b.jpg" width="353">
Chain store sales fell sharply last week. The 1.0% w/w decline followed a similar 0.8% drop the prior week, reported the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS.
Declines during three of the four weeks this month pulled the average level of May sales down 0.6% from the April average which rose 1.6% from March. During the last ten years there has been a 47% correlation between the y/y change in chain store sales and the change in nonauto retail sales less gasoline.
The ICSC-UBS retail chain-store sales index is constructed using the same-store sales (stores open for one year) reported by 78 stores of seven retailers: Dayton Hudson, Federated, Kmart, May, J.C. Penney, Sears and Wal-Mart.
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC-UBS continued its recent decline with another 0.6% drop. The indicator was down 2.7% versus one year ago and 4.5% from the recent peak in early January.
Inflation, Banking and Economic Growth from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland can be found <a href="http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/com2006/0515.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/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">05/27/06</th>
<th scope="col">05/20/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>467.5</td>
<td>472.0</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Mortgage Applications Off 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> May 31, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060531a.jpg" width="353">
The total number of mortgage applications fell another 1.9% last week on the heels of the prior week&#39;s 6.0% decline. The weakness dropped the average level in May 2.2% below April and 30.0% below last June.
Purchase applications fell another 0.2% w/w after the 7.1% w/w drop the prior week. That lowered the May average 0.8% versus April and 17.5% versus last July.
During the last ten years there has been a negative 80% correlation between the interest rate level on 30-year financing and purchase applications while during those years there has been a 54% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing single family home sales.
A 4.8% w/w drop in applications to refinance added to the 4.3% decline during the prior week. That lowered the May level 4.1% below the April average which fell 4.1% from March. The May level was 43.8% below last June.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage backed up two basis points to 6.86% and left the May average at 6.86%, up sharply from the 5.81% low last June. The rate on 15-year financing was stable at 6.52%. Interest rates on 15 and 30 year mortgages are closely correlated (&gt;90%) with the rate on 10 year Treasury securities and during the last ten years there has been a (negative) 82% correlation between purchase applications and the effective rate on a 30-Year mortgage.
The Mortgage Bankers Association surveys between 20 to 35 of the top lenders in the U.S. housing industry to derive its refinance, purchase and market indexes. The weekly survey accounts for more than 40% of all applications processed each week by mortgage lenders. Visit the Mortgage Bankers Association site <a href="http://www.mbaa.org">here</a>.
Inversion, a speech by St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President William Poole, can be found <a href="http://www.stlouisfed.org/news/speeches/2006/05_18_06.htm"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYW/@S5/@S5.HTM">MBA Mortgage Applications (3/16/90=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">05/26/06</th>
<th scope="col">05/19/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>541.9</td>
<td>552.6</td>
<td>-23.6%</td>
<td>708.6</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>395.5</td>
<td>396.4</td>
<td>-14.5%</td>
<td>470.9</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>1,409.0</td>
<td>1,480.5</td>
<td>-34.2%</td>
<td>2,092.3</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Q1 GDP Strong in India; Growth Uneven but on Trend in Malaysia & the Philippines 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> May 31, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060531c.jpg" width="353">
Economic growth in South Asia was firm in Q1, according to reports out today from government statistics offices in India, Malaysia and Philippines. India, especially, with a 9.3% year/year gain in GDP, saw its strongest quarter since the end of 2003. In Malaysia, growth appears uneventful, with year-on-year gains hovering between 5% and 7%, but after the steep recession of 1998 and the slowdown in 2001, this looks attractive. In the Philippines, the latest quarter was up a modest 0.8% from Q4 but 5.5% from the year earlier. This pace compares to a 4.9% average over the past 5 years. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060531d.jpg" width="353">
In India, agriculture continues to dominate the economy, although as seen in the second graph, the trade and transport sector surpassed it in 2002; that industrial segment also continues to grow rapidly now, surging 12.9% in Q1. The same group also includes hotels and communications; we&#39;d suspect that as the Indian infrastructure builds, &quot;communications&quot; would be expanding rapidly. The same holds for construction; it is smaller in absolute size, but has sustained better than 10% average growth for the last five years. Other sectors are chasing along, too. Manufacturing gained 8.9% over the last four quarters, while finance, insurance and business services was up 10.8%.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060531e.jpg" width="353">
The Malaysian economy has the interesting feature that exports are larger than total GDP -- by a sizable amount. In Q1, exports were 82.0 billion ringgit (1987 prices) while GDP was 68.1 billion. See the third graph. Imports are sizable too, of course, at 77.8 billion ringgit. So goods and services are imported into the country, processed, and shipped out. This chain of events yielded GDP growth of 2.2% in Q1 alone (from Q4), the largest single quarter since early 2000. The domestic economy is fairly vibrant; it expanded 5.7% in the quarter, pushed by an 11.1% surge in fixed investment. But it is also more volatile, with Q4 down 3.7%.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060531f.jpg" width="353">
In the Philippines, quarterly movements in individual sectors are frequently uneven. In Q1, total GDP slowed to 0.8% from 1.4% growth in Q4. Agriculture, mining, manufacturing, trade and real estate contributed to the slowing, transportation and private services were steady to somewhat slower, but construction, finance and government picked up considerably. On the demand side, total domestic demand accelerated to 1.4% growth from -0.1% in Q4; net exports also added to growth through a much smaller deficit. But the statistical discrepancy turned sharply negative, so it is hard to identify the genuine demand-side source of the slower pace in total GDP. At the same time, gains in prior quarters meant, as noted above, that the overall economy still saw 5.3% year-on-year growth. See in the last graph how the lurches in quarter-to-quarter performance still produce the respectable yearly pace.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">GDP: % Changes*</th>
<th scope="col">Q1 2006</th>
<th scope="col">Q4 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Q3 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Year/ Year</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">India</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>9.3</td>
<td>8.2</td>
<td>7.3</td>
<td>7.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing </td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>1.5</td>
<td>8.9</td>
<td>8.8</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>7.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Trade, Hotels,&nbsp; Transport, Etc.</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>12.9</td>
<td>10.9</td>
<td>11.4</td>
<td>10.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Finance, Business Services, Etc.</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>10.8</td>
<td>9.7</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>4.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Malaysia</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>5.3</td>
<td>5.2</td>
<td>7.2</td>
<td>5.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Philippines</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>5.5</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>6.2</td>
<td>4.9</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

<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/060530a.jpg" width="353">
Consumer confidence, as reported by the Conference Board, fell less than expected in May from what was a four year high in April. The 6.0% decline to 103.2 from a revised 109.9 contrasted with Consensus expectations for a decline to 100.0 and compared to a 9.5% decline in the University of Michigan&#39;s May Index of Consumer Sentiment.
During the last twenty years there has been a 52% correlation between the level of consumer confidence and the y/y change in real consumer spending. The correlation rose to 66% during the last ten years.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060530b.jpg" width="353">
The index of consumers&#39; expectations slumped 9.3% (-10.4% y/y). Expectations for employment in six months slipped but expectations for an increase in income fell to the lowest level (16.6%) since 2003. Expectations for the inflation rate in twelve months rose to 5.6% versus a recent low of 4.8% in March.
Consumers&#39; assessment of the present situation reversed the increase in April with a 2.7% decline (+12.5% y/y). The percentage of respondents who viewed jobs as plentiful (28.6%) fell moderately but the percentage that viewed jobs as hard to get (20.5%) rose to the highest level this year.
Consumers&#39; appraisal of current business conditions fell as a lesser 28% viewed it as good and an increased 15.4% viewed it as bad.
The Conference Board&#146;s survey isconducted by a mailed questionnaire to 5,000 households and about 3,500 typically respond.

<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/@EF1401/@EF1401.HTM">Conference Board</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>
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Confidence</td>
<td>103.2</td>
<td>109.8</td>
<td>12.4%</td>
<td>100.3</td>
<td>96.1</td>
<td>79.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Consumer confidence, as reported by the Conference Board, fell less than expected in May from what was a four year high in April. The 6.0% decline to 103.2 from a revised 109.9 contrasted with Consensus expectations for a decline to [...]

Consumer Confidence Fell Less Than Expected

US is big leader in global surge in private AI investment

Larger-than-usual income tax refunds this year are supporting consumer spending

Sharply rising share of AI-related jobs

Inflationary impact of surge in oil prices larger in Europe than in the US

Futures market thinks the price of oil will recede significantly over the next six months

Recent pickup in US defense orders could help support overall growth ahead

Cost of transporting crude oil has soared to series high

Market-based inflation expectations have not yet reflected recent surge in oil prices

Global equity markets are fearing a major economic disruption from soaring oil prices

Is recent drop in sentiment signaling softer growth ahead?

With the Iran conflict, geopolitical risk has soared to alarming levels

Soaring AI-related investment in US underpinning strong contribution of business spending to overall growth

AI-related outperformance of IP in Advanced Asia ex Japan

Resilient US economy pushing up Blue Chip 2026 outlook

US and China big leaders in adoption of AI models

Robust US demand for advanced technology products

China's export growth rotating away from the US

More pronounced upward revisions in countries more exposed to AI investment

Stable job openings and hiring rates point to cautious hiring

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

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

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

Tighter US immigration enforcement adversely impacting labor force

Economic policy uncertainty, while still elevated, is declining

Gradual disinflation and easier monetary policies across advanced economies

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

New York

Tokyo

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

**A Tug of War Between AI Hope and Geopolitical Shock**
The latest Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey highlights a growing divergence between economies benefiting from AI-driven optimism and those more exposed to the inflationary consequences of renewed geopolitical instability. Taiwan stands out as the clearest AI beneficiary, with growth forecasts revised sharply higher while inflation expectations have risen only modestly, reflecting surging semiconductor demand and continued investment in global technology supply chains. China also remains relatively resilient, supported by ongoing AI-related capital spending and stronger technology sectors. By contrast, the euro area and UK have seen much larger upward revisions to inflation forecasts alongside weaker or declining growth expectations, underscoring their greater vulnerability to the recent Middle East shock and higher energy costs. Korea sits somewhere in between: benefiting from the AI hardware cycle but still exposed to trade and energy headwinds. Overall, the chart illustrates the increasingly important push-and-pull shaping the global outlook: AI optimism and productivity hopes on one side, and geopolitical fragmentation, energy insecurity and supply-side inflation pressures on the other.

260513Z1.jpg

**Forecasters See Contained Pass-Through**
Against this backdrop, our latest Blue Chip special question sought to gauge whether economists believe the recent rise in energy prices will remain largely contained — or whether it risks spilling more meaningfully into underlying global inflation dynamics. The results suggest forecasters have become somewhat less concerned about a broad and persistent inflationary impulse since April. A larger share of respondents in the May survey now expect only a “limited and temporary” pass-through into core inflation, while the proportion anticipating “moderate and persistent” effects has declined noticeably. Very few panelists expect significant second-round effects, implying that most still believe inflation expectations and wage-setting behaviour remain relatively well anchored. In part, this reflects confidence in central bank credibility and the view that softer global demand conditions will constrain firms’ pricing power. Yet the persistence of a sizeable minority still expecting moderate pass-through underscores the uncomfortable tension facing policymakers. 

260513Z2.jpg

**Energy Reawakens as a US Inflation Driver**
While survey respondents generally expect only limited pass-through from higher energy prices into broader inflation, the latest US CPI data provide a reminder that the process may already be underway at the margin. April’s CPI report showed core inflation coming in slightly firmer than expected, suggesting underlying price pressures remain more persistent than many policymakers had hoped. The decomposition of CPI inflation highlights that services continue to dominate overall inflation dynamics, reflecting still-elevated wage and labour-intensive price pressures across the economy. However, the more notable recent development has been the renewed contribution from energy prices, which had previously acted as a disinflationary force through much of 2025. Food inflation has also remained comparatively steady, while non-energy goods prices continue to exert only modest upward pressure despite ongoing tariff and supply-chain concerns. Taken together, the data reinforce the idea that the US economy is not facing a classic demand collapse, but rather a more uncomfortable supply-side environment in which geopolitical energy shocks risk colliding with still-resilient domestic demand, AI-related investment spending and sticky service-sector inflation.

260513Z3.jpg

**AI: The Powerful Counterweight to Geopolitical Headwinds**
If rising energy prices and geopolitical instability represent one major force shaping the current macroeconomic outlook, the extraordinary surge in AI-related investment represents the other. The latest data from Our World in Data show global private investment in AI accelerating sharply again in 2025, reaching close to $300 billion — more than double the level seen just two years earlier. The United States continues to dominate the global AI landscape, accounting for the overwhelming majority of private investment spending, while China and Europe remain considerably smaller contributors despite continued growth. The scale and speed of the 2025 increase is particularly striking given the broader backdrop of elevated policy uncertainty, trade fragmentation and concerns about slowing global productivity growth. In effect, the global economy is now being pulled in two competing directions: on one side, geopolitical tensions, supply-chain fragilities and more recent energy shocks are weighing on confidence and raising supply-side costs; on the other, AI enthusiasm is driving an enormous wave of capital expenditure, infrastructure build-out and technology-related demand. This helps explain why growth expectations — particularly in the US and parts of Asia — have remained comparatively resilient despite an increasingly uncertain global environment.

260513Z4.jpg

**Industrial Winners and Losers in a Fragmenting Global Economy**
The divergence in industrial performance across advanced economies has become increasingly striking. Taiwan has emerged as one of the clearest beneficiaries of the global AI boom, with industrial production surging as semiconductor demand, data-centre investment and advanced electronics exports continue to accelerate. Denmark has also significantly outperformed, though for very different reasons, with the extraordinary global success of its pharmaceutical sector — particularly weight-loss and diabetes drugs — driving a powerful expansion in manufacturing output. By contrast, the UK and Germany have experienced a far weaker industrial recovery. In both cases, elevated energy costs and greater dependence on imported energy have weighed heavily on industrial competitiveness since the post-pandemic energy shock. Germany’s large manufacturing sector has been particularly exposed to higher natural gas prices and weaker external demand, while the UK has continued to struggle with a combination of high energy costs, weak productivity growth and subdued business investment. The chart highlights an increasingly important feature of the global economy: countries exposed to powerful structural growth themes such as AI or pharmaceuticals are pulling away from those still burdened by energy dependence and deteriorating industrial competitiveness.

260513Z5.jpg

**China’s Pulse Is Picking Up Again**
China’s economic backdrop has shown clearer signs of improvement in recent months, with both the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index and the Yicai High Frequency Economic Activity Index moving higher. The rebound suggests that incoming data have begun consistently outperforming expectations after a prolonged period of disappointment. Part of the recent improvement likely reflects the cumulative effects of policy easing, including targeted fiscal support, infrastructure spending and further efforts to stabilise the property sector. Export demand has also remained more resilient than many expected, helped in part by the continued strength of global technology and AI-related supply chains. At the same time, improving domestic mobility and energy usage indicators point to firmer underlying activity momentum. The Yicai index itself is designed to provide a near real-time pulse of the Chinese economy using a basket of high-frequency indicators including subway usage, air pollution, coal consumption, freight activity, unemployment and bankruptcy trends. While China still faces significant structural headwinds — including weak household confidence, property-sector fragilities and deflationary pressures — the recent pickup suggests that growth momentum may be stabilising at a time when several other major economies are becoming more vulnerable to geopolitical and energy-related shocks.

260513Z6.jpg

The global economy is still caught between two powerful and competing forces. On one side, the AI investment boom continues to support growth, industrial activity and equity markets, particularly in the US and parts of Asia. On the other, renewed Middle East tensions and higher energy prices are adding to inflation risks and broader policy uncertainty. The latest Blue Chip survey reflects this divide clearly: growth expectations have generally held up best in economies tied to AI-related investment and technology supply chains, while inflation forecasts have risen more sharply in more energy-exposed economies such as the UK and euro area (chart 1). Forecasters still largely expect only limited pass-through from higher energy prices into core inflation, although recent US CPI data suggest underlying price pressures remain somewhat sticky (charts 2 and 3). At the same time, the extraordinary continued surge in global AI investment — now approaching $300 billion annually — highlights the sheer scale of capital being deployed into semiconductors, data centres and digital infrastructure, particularly in the United States (chart 4). The divergence in industrial production trends also reinforces the growing gap between economies benefiting from structural growth drivers — such as Taiwan’s semiconductor sector and Denmark’s pharmaceutical industry — and those struggling with higher energy costs and weaker competitiveness, notably Germany and the UK (chart 5). Meanwhile, improving Chinese activity indicators suggest policy support and stronger technology demand may finally be helping to stabilise growth (chart 6). Overall, the world economy remains resilient, but increasingly uneven, with AI-related investment continuing to offset — though not eliminate — the drag from geopolitical fragmentation and rising energy insecurity.

Charts of the Week: The Tug of War

Sandy Batten

260514v5.jpg

260514w5.jpg

Total retail sales rose a solid 0.5% m/m (4.9% y/y) in April on top of a slightly downwardly revised 1.6% monthly jump in March (previously 1.7%), according to data released by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Action Economics Forecast Survey looked for a 05% m/m gain. Excluding autos, other sales increased 0.7% m/m (6.3% y/y) in April following an unrevised 1.9% monthly jump in March. Expectations were for a 0.6% monthly increase. The strong performance in March and the additional solid gain in April put the April level up 7.8% at an annual rate from the Q1 average, providing a very solid start for Q2.

As expected, the continued rise in retail gasoline prices boosted gasoline sales further in April. Gasoline sales increased 2.8% m/m in April following a 13.7% m/m surge in March and accounted for more than 40% of the April increase in total sales. However, sales were solid even without gasoline sales. Total sales excluding gasoline rose 0.3% m/m in April versus a 0.7% monthly gain in March. Sales excluding both autos and gasoline increased 0.5% m/m in April following a 0.7% m/m rise in March.

The control group of sales (total sales excluding food services, autos, gasoline and building materials that the BEA uses to construct PCE in the national accounts) posted another solid increase in March, rising 0.5% m/m in April following an upwardly revised 0.8% m/m increase in March (previously (0.7% m/m). The solid performances of the control group sales in March and April provide a strong start to Q2. April control-group sales are 5.4% at an annual rate above the Q1 average, in line with the 5.7% annualized increase in Q1. Consumer spending remains surprisingly resilient notwithstanding the recent hit to disposable income from the marked increase in energy prices.

Sales across major sectors were varied in April. Consumers clearly spent more on necessities, owing largely to higher prices. Food sales increased 0.8% m/m in April on top of a 1.0% m/m rise in March. And as already noted, gasoline sales posted another outsized monthly increase. By contrast, department store sales slumped 3.2% m/m, clothing sales fell 1.5% m/m, auto sales declined 0.4% m/m and furniture sales fell 2.0% m/m. More encouragingly, sales of nonstore retailers rose 1.1% m/m, their fourth consecutive solid monthly gain. And sales at restaurants increased 0.6% m/m in April, their third consecutive monthly rise. Analysts frequently use restaurant sales as a barometer of consumer attitudes, believing that consumers would not eat out regularly if they were under serious financial stress.

Retail sales data can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. The expectations figures are from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in **AS1REPNA**.


260514x5.jpg

260514y5.jpg

- Total sales increase 0.5% m/m in April after a 1.6% monthly jump in March.
- Gasoline sales rose 2.8% m/m in April on top of a 13.7% surge in March.
- Auto sales fell 0.4% m/m after a 0.6% m/m rise in March.
- Excluding auto and gasoline sales, remaining sales increased by a solid 0.5% m/m in April versus a 0.7% m/m rise in March.
- Sales of the retail control group that is used to construct PCE rose 0.5% m/m in April and are 5.4% annualized above the Q1 average, providing a good start to Q2.


U.S. Retail Sales Slowed in April But Remained Solid

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

260514a8.jpg

260514b8.jpg


Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose by 12,000 to 211,000 in the week ending May 9, from 199,000 in the week ending May 2, revised from 200,000. The four-week average rose 750 to 203,750 in the week ending May 9, from 203,000 the May 2 week, revised from 203,250. The Action Economics/Haver Analytics Survey looked for 205,000 claims to have been filed. 

The total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries—also known as “continuing claims”—rose by 24,000 to 1.782 million in the week ending May 2, from 1.758 million in the week ending April 25, revised from 1.766 million. The four-week moving average declined to 1.781 million in the latest week from 1.788 million in the April 25 week. The four-week moving average reached the lowest level since May 2024. The insured unemployment rate rose back to 1.2% in the week of May 2 from the one-week dip to 1.1% in the April 25 week. It had been at 1.2% since the week of November 29, 2025.

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ending April 25, the highest unemployment rates were in Rhode Island (2.29%), New Jersey and Massachusetts (both 2.20%), and Washington (2.15%). The lowest rates were in Florida and Louisiana (both 0.31%), South Dakota (0.32%), Alabama and Arkansas (both 0.36%), North Carolina (0.38%), Tennessee (0.47%) and Iowa, Kansas and Virginia (all 0.48%). Rates in other notable states include California (1.99%), New York (1.66%), Illinois (1.56%), Pennsylvania (1.28%), and Texas (1.03%). 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.


260514c8.jpg

260514d8.jpg

- New claims rose by 12,000 to 211,000.
- Continuing claims rose by 24,000 to 1.782 million.
- The insured unemployment rate was back up to 1.2% in the week of May 2, from the one-week dip to 1.1% the prior week.

U.S. Initial Unemployment Claims rose in the Week of May 9

Robert Brusca

260514e.jpg

UK GDP grew by 2.5% in 2026-Q1. GDP growth quarterly was last this strong in 2024-Q2 and last stronger in 2024-Q1. This is the strongest quarterly growth in about two years. Private consumption surged in 2026-Q1, rising at a 2.4% annual rate. Capital formation and housing each backed off in the last two quarters. This is the opposite form the US where investment is strongly pushing growth ahead.

On the international side of the ledger, UK exports rose at a 0.4% annualized rate in the quarter while imports rose by a strong 2.6% annual rate, still, viewed on its own, domestic demand rose at a 3.2% annual rate.

Domestic demand growth has picked up to over 1% at 1.5% on a year-over-year basis. That is a good development. However, it is still a weak showing. Over the last 26 years domestic demand’s Year-on-year gain ranks at its 30th-percentiel; it has been weaker than this only about 30% of the time. But over the last nearly four-years the 1.5% gain is just below its median. This gives some indication of how weak growth has been in the post-Covid period. The UK was still in a post Brexit environment, when it had to deal with Covid, the invasion of Ukraine, and now the Middle East. At the same time, it has had a considerable amount of its own political turmoil and still does. 

The chart above shows the snake crawl of GDP that continues to depict growth in the EMU area. That is a continuing weak environment- one of the UK’s important export markets. Europe’s fixation on social welfare spending and the need to tax to pay for it has robbed the economy of its dynamism. Still, both the UK and the Euro-Area continue to have lingering inflation issues. And both show current inflation in an upswing. 

**Central bankers' inflation and growth** 
Central banks are playing a waiting game, the best that they can. Major money center country central banks have been consistently overshooting their inflation targets since Covid. And despite excess inflation banks have been reluctant to hike rates and have instead pursued a strategy of persisting slow rate reduction. It has been a curious period in which central banks have kept their inflation target goals but simply have been content to miss their targets in the short run and promise to thit them in the long run. This is clearly a policy of only temporary usefulness because it is bound to blow up, the longer inflation fails to be controlled at its targeted pace. For now, UK interest rates remain higher than in Europe, closer to the level in the US and with a monetary policy committee that seems determined to stop the overshoot as oil prices flare. We’ll see if the BOE MPC members are really ready to pull the trigger on higher rates as UK GDP growth looks firmer. 



United Kingdom

UK Q1 GDP Growth Steps Up  

Michael J. Moran

260513M9.jpg

260513N9.jpg

The Producer Price Index surged 1.4% in April, far in excess of the expected increase of 0.5%. Energy prices accounted for much of the increase with a jump of 7.8%, a much sharper change than the advance of 3.8% in the CPI. The marked difference between the energy components of the CPI and the PPI was primarily due to the nature of the customers. The Consumer Price Index, naturally, collects prices paid by individuals; the PPI, in addition to individuals, collects prices paid by businesses, governments, and exporters. Energy prices paid by governments and exporters rose sharply (12.1% and 15.8%, respectively). The PPI also showed a sharp increase in energy prices paid by individuals (6.1% versus 3.8% in the CPI).

Service prices also contributed to the high-side surprise in the PPI, posting an increase of 1.2%. This area often moves erratically, but still the latest move can be viewed as unusual, as it marked the second largest increase in service prices since the current structure of the PPI began in 2010 (three other observations were close with increases of 1.1%; the largest increase was 1.3% during the inflation burst in 2022).

Goods prices other than energy items were tame compared with service prices, but they too were unsettling. This grouping posted an increase of 0.6%, a reading in the upper end of the range from the past few years. The increase, although pronounced, was not broadly based. In a list of 53 non-energy goods provided by the BLS, only 13 posted increases of 0.4% or more, although a handful were especially sharp (electronic components 8.1%, industrial chemicals 4.4%, household furniture 1.8%).

Food represented the only major grouping that was not troubling, registering an increase of 0.2%. 


260513O9.jpg

260513P9.jpg

- The energy component led the sharp increase in the PPI, but it had support from many other areas
- Excluding energy, most service prices rose sharply; prices of non-energy goods also were under pressure
- The food component went against the grain with an increase of only 0.2%


Economy in Brief: 2006

Jump to:

1Q U.S. Productivity Revised Up

Home Prices Rose More Slowly

Q1 GDP Strong in India; Growth Uneven but on Trend in Malaysia & the Philippines

ADP Nat'l Employment Report: Slimmer Gain in May Payrolls

Mortgage Applications Off

Chain Store Sales Fell Sharply

ADP Nat'l Employment Report: Slimmer Gain in May Payrolls

Consumer Confidence Fell Less Than Expected