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/050414c.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance fell last week by 10,000 to 330,000 versus an upwardly revised level the prior week. Consensus expectations had been for 330,000 claims.
During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 74% correlation between the level of initial claims for unemployment insurance and the monthly change in payroll employment. There has been a (negative) 66% correlation with the level of continuing claims.
The four week moving average of initial claims rose very slightly to 338,000 (-1.7% y/y).
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance fell 22,000 following the 88,000 rise the prior week that was little revised.
The insured unemployment rate remained at 2.1%.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">04/09/05</th>
<th scope="col">04/02/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>330</td>
<td>340</td>
<td>-7.6%</td>
<td>343</td>
<td>402</td>
<td>404</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>2,664</td>
<td>-10.9%</td>
<td>2,926</td>
<td>3,531</td>
<td>3,570</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Initial claims for unemployment insurance fell last week by 10,000 to 330,000 versus an upwardly revised level the prior week. Consensus expectations had been for 330,000 claims. During the last ten years there has been a (negative) [...]

Initial Claims For Jobless Insurance Down Again

<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/050414b.jpg" width="353">
The Job Openings &amp; Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated the job openings rate held steady in February at 2.5% versus the revised January level. Both figures remained down slightly from the improved level of 2.6% in December. The job openings rate is the number of job openings on the last business day of the month as a percent of total employment plus job openings.
The hires rate in February slipped back to 3.5% from the upwardly revised January level. The hires rate is the number of hires during the month divided by employment.
The total number of job openings rose 2.2% (+16.8% y/y) following the 3.5% decline in January that was more moderate than reported initially.
Job separations fell 4.5% m/m (-0.9% y/y) for the second consecutive monthly decline. The separation rate fell to 3.1%, the lowest in over a year. Total separations include quits, layoffs, discharges, and other separations as well as retirements. The total separations, or turnover, rate is the total number of separations during the month divided by employment.
The survey dates only to December 2000 but has since followed the movement in nonfarm payrolls.
A description of the Jolts survey and the latest release from the U.S. Department of Labor is available <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EB/@EB14/@EB14.HTM">JOLTS</a> (Job Openings &amp; Labor Turnover Survey)</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;Feb &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Job Openings Rate: Total</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Hires Rate: Total</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Job Openings & Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated the job openings rate held steady in February at 2.5% versus the revised January level. Both figures remained down slightly from the [...]

JOLTS: U.S. Job Openings Steady

<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/050414b.jpg" width="353">
The Job Openings &amp; Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated the job openings rate held steady in February at 2.5% versus the revised January level. Both figures remained down slightly from the improved level of 2.6% in December. The job openings rate is the number of job openings on the last business day of the month as a percent of total employment plus job openings.
The hires rate in February slipped back to 3.5% from the upwardly revised January level. The hires rate is the number of hires during the month divided by employment.
The total number of job openings rose 2.2% (+16.8% y/y) following the 3.5% decline in January that was more moderate than reported initially.
Job separations fell 4.5% m/m (-0.9% y/y) for the second consecutive monthly decline. The separation rate fell to 3.1%, the lowest in over a year. Total separations include quits, layoffs, discharges, and other separations as well as retirements. The total separations, or turnover, rate is the total number of separations during the month divided by employment.
The survey dates only to December 2000 but has since followed the movement in nonfarm payrolls.
A description of the Jolts survey and the latest release from the U.S. Department of Labor is available <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EB/@EB14/@EB14.HTM">JOLTS</a> (Job Openings &amp; Labor Turnover Survey)</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;Feb &#39;04</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Job Openings Rate: Total</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Hires Rate: Total</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Initial Claims For Jobless Insurance Down Again 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 14, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050414c.jpg" width="353">
Initial claims for unemployment insurance fell last week by 10,000 to 330,000 versus an upwardly revised level the prior week. Consensus expectations had been for 330,000 claims.
During the last ten years there has been a (negative) 74% correlation between the level of initial claims for unemployment insurance and the monthly change in payroll employment. There has been a (negative) 66% correlation with the level of continuing claims.
The four week moving average of initial claims rose very slightly to 338,000 (-1.7% y/y).
Continuing claims for unemployment insurance fell 22,000 following the 88,000 rise the prior week that was little revised.
The insured unemployment rate remained at 2.1%.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/WEEKLY/@W5/@W507/@W507.HTM">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</a></th>
<th scope="col">04/09/05</th>
<th scope="col">04/02/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Initial Claims</td>
<td>330</td>
<td>340</td>
<td>-7.6%</td>
<td>343</td>
<td>402</td>
<td>404</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Continuing Claims</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>2,664</td>
<td>-10.9%</td>
<td>2,926</td>
<td>3,531</td>
<td>3,570</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
U.S. Business Inventories Still Building 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 14, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050414a.jpg" width="353">
Total business inventories rose another 0.5% in February but figures back to 2002 were revised somewhat lower. Nevertheless, the y/y rate of inventory accumulation continued strong at 8.2% yet still lagged the improvement in sales growth. In February the ratio of inventories-to-sales rose slightly from the record low but remained below the year ago level.
Retail inventories rose 0.3% in February for the second month. Excluding autos, retail inventories moderated to the weakest gain in four months. Inventories of furniture &amp; electronics (+7.1% y/y) fell for the second month and general merchandise inventories rose just 0.1% (5.9% y/y). Apparel inventories accumulated strongly (4.0% y/y) for the second month.
Factory sector inventories grew 0.5% following the 1.5% jump in January. Regardless, the 8.6% gain versus last year was the strongest since 1989.
Wholesale inventory accumulation moderated to a 0.6% gain but the double digit rise versus last year was the strongest since 1995. During the last ten years there has been a 64% correlation between the y/y change in wholesale inventories and the change in imports of merchandise.
Overall business sales fell 0.4% (+9.6% y/y) due to lower wholesale sales and a 0.9% decline in factory shipments.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED06/@ED0601/@ED0601.HTM">Business Inventories</a></th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Jan</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>8.2%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Retail</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Retail excl. Autos</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>6.9%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>11.1%</td>
<td>10.8%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>8.6%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Consumer Prices in Sweden, Finland and Poland Still Restrained in the Face of Rising Energy 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> April 14, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050414d.jpg" width="353">
A couple of weeks ago, we noted here that higher energy prices had failed to ignite new inflation in Italy. The same is true for some other countries, whose CPI data were reported today for March. In Poland, the seasonally adjusted CPI was absolutely flat for a second month, and the year/year increase eased to 3.4% from 3.6% in February. In Finland, the year/year pace did go up in March to 1.0%, from 0.2% in both January and February, but this remains a relatively low number. Finnish inflation has averaged 1.3% over the last five years.
In Sweden, there is almost no inflation at all, nor any sign of a pickup. The March figure was a mere 0.1% above March 2004, with the prior two months averaging a little over 0.3%, about the same as in 2004 overall.
Thus, as in the situation in Italy, which we discussed before, other prices remain weak, offsetting the pressure from energy. Clothing prices and technology-driven communications costs are low in most countries. Even fuel components themselves have slowed from their strongest pace, as seen in the second graph.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050414e.jpg" width="353">
We speak of the restrained inflation as beneficial for these economies, but that remains, of course, a relative statement. As prices are held back in the face of rising fuel costs, someone&#39;s profits or incomes are being squeezed, so the outlook is still clouded by high-priced energy.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Yr/Yr % Changes Not Seasonally Adjusted&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2005</th>
December/December
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2004</td>
<td>2003</td>
<td>2002</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Poland</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.6</td>
<td>3.6</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>0.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Sweden</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>2.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Finland</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>1.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">US</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>2.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Carol Stone, CBE

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050413c.jpg" width="353">
Press reports on today&#39;s UK labor force data highlight the increase in unemployment measures. The ILO-defined concept, similar to that in the US, rose in the three months to February by 0.1% to 4.8%. The so-called &quot;claimant count&quot; increased 11,000 in March, with the associated rate rising to 2.7% from 2.6% in February. Wire service headlines and story leads pointed out that this was the largest monthly increase in claimants since May 2003, and noted that it was unfortunate coincidence that the news came on the very day the Prime Minister and the Labour Party begin their quest for reelection next month.
There are offsetting factors, though, that remove some of the sting from these unemployment figures. Firstly, both unemployment rates even at their new, slightly increased levels, remain the second lowest in nearly 30 years. Except for three recent months at 2.6%, the claimant count rate has not been as low as 2.7% since May 1975. The broader ILO unemployment rate was at or above 4.8% from September 1975 through last June; since then, the low was just 4.6% in August. So these latest figures hardly indicate a significant upturn, let alone a major uptrend in unemployment. (The ILO definition represents a three-month moving average centered on January.)<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050413d.jpg" width="353">
Moreover, employment rose once again and by a larger amount than in the previous several reports. The labor force measure, the number of people saying they have jobs, rose 72,000 to 28.64 million, still another a new high. This too is a 3-month centered moving average for January, compared to the December figure.
The average earnings index (AEI) for February (a 3-month moving average ending in February) was up 4.7% on a year ago, compared with 4.4% in the previous couple of reports. However, the acceleration was due to bonus payments, as the underlying base earnings measure eased to 4.3% from 4.4%.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/UK/UK.HTM">United Kingdom</a> Seasonally adjusted data</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 2004</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
<td></td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>4.8*</td>
<td>4.7*</td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>5.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Claimant Count (thous)</td>
<td>829</td>
<td>818</td>
<td>814</td>
<td>824</td>
<td>854</td>
<td>933</td>
<td>947</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Employment (mil)</td>
<td></td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>28.64*</td>
<td>28.57*</td>
<td>28.44</td>
<td>28.18</td>
<td>27.91</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Change (thous)</td>
<td></td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>+72K</td>
<td>+46K</td>
<td>+0.9%</td>
<td>+0.9%</td>
<td>+0.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Average Earnings Index Incl Bonuses: &quot;Headline Rate&quot;(%)**</td>
<td></td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Average Earnings Index Ex Bonuses: &quot;Headline Rate&quot; (%)**</td>
<td></td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>4.2</td>
<td>3.6</td>
<td>4.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Press reports on today's UK labor force data highlight the increase in unemployment measures. The ILO-defined concept, similar to that in the US, rose in the three months to February by 0.1% to 4.8%. The so-called "claimant count" [...]

UK Unemployment Ticks Up in February, But Employment Also Shows Strong Rise

<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/050413b.jpg" width="353">
The Mortgage Bankers Association reported that mortgage applications recovered 6.1% last week to the highest level in four weeks. Nevertheless, the average level so far in April is 3.9% below March which fell 4.8% from February.
Purchase applications reversed all of the prior week&#39;s decline and rose 6.4%. The average so far in April is up 0.5% versus March. During the last ten years there has been a 50% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing single family home sales.
Applications to refinance recovered all of the prior two weeks&#39; declines with a 5.6% jump though the April average still is down 9.8% from March.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage rose to 6.22% and the effective rate on a 15-year mortgage rose to 5.85%.
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>.
 Moving Up: Trends in Homeownership and Mortgage Indebtedness from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia can be found <a href="http://www.philadelphiafed.org/files/br/brq105wl.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/@S5/@S5.HTM">MBA Mortgage Applications (3/16/90=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">04/08/05</th>
<th scope="col">04/01/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>683.6</td>
<td>644.5</td>
<td>-13.3%</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
<td>799.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>474.5</td>
<td>446.0</td>
<td>9.8%</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
<td>354.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>1,899.6</td>
<td>1,798.8</td>
<td>-33.6%</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
<td>3,388.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Mortgage Bankers Association reported that mortgage applications recovered 6.1% last week to the highest level in four weeks. Nevertheless, the average level so far in April is 3.9% below March which fell 4.8% from February. [...]

Mortgage Applications Recover

<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/050413a.jpg" width="353">
US retail sales rose 0.3% in March but the gain fell quite short of Consensus expectations for a 0.8% rise. The 0.5% increase in February was unrevised though figures back to 2003 were revised slightly lower.
March sales excluding motor vehicles also disappointed Consensus expectations for a 0.6% rise.The 0.1% up tick followed a downwardly revised 0.6% increase in February.
Spending on discretionary items eased after increasing strongly through February. Sales at furniture &amp; home furnishings stores slipped 0.5% (+4.1% y/y) after a 1.5% February jump. General merchandise stores reversed an unrevised 0.7% (+4.4% y/y) gain in February and apparel store sales dropped 1.9% (+1.6% y/y) after unrevised gains of 1.1% and 1.9% during the prior two months.
March nonauto retail sales less gasoline fell 0.1% (+5.4% y/y) following a 0.5% February increase. Gasoline service station sales jumped 2.1% (17.8% y/y) as gasoline prices rose 8.9% to an average $2.08 per gallon. In the second week of April gasoline prices rose further to an average $2.28.
Sales of nonstore retailers (internet and catalogue) jumped 1.2% m/m (+13.4% y/y).
Building material store sales surged 1.5% (+5.5% y/y) but the y/y gain eased considerably from the earlier pace. The comparison was tough given the 9.7% m/m spike in March 2004.
Economic Policy and the Sustainability of U.S. Productivity Growth from New York Federal Reserve Bank President Timothy F. Geithner are available <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2005/gei050412.html"> here</a>.
The minutes to the latest meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/minutes/20050322.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">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/usecon/@ED/@ED04/@ED0401/@ED0401.HTM">Retail Sales &amp; Food Services</a></td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding Autos</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

US retail sales rose 0.3% in March but the gain fell quite short of Consensus expectations for a 0.8% rise. The 0.5% increase in February was unrevised though figures back to 2003 were revised slightly lower. March sales excluding [...]

U.S. Retail Sales' Gain Light

<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/050413a.jpg" width="353">
US retail sales rose 0.3% in March but the gain fell quite short of Consensus expectations for a 0.8% rise. The 0.5% increase in February was unrevised though figures back to 2003 were revised slightly lower.
March sales excluding motor vehicles also disappointed Consensus expectations for a 0.6% rise.The 0.1% up tick followed a downwardly revised 0.6% increase in February.
Spending on discretionary items eased after increasing strongly through February. Sales at furniture &amp; home furnishings stores slipped 0.5% (+4.1% y/y) after a 1.5% February jump. General merchandise stores reversed an unrevised 0.7% (+4.4% y/y) gain in February and apparel store sales dropped 1.9% (+1.6% y/y) after unrevised gains of 1.1% and 1.9% during the prior two months.
March nonauto retail sales less gasoline fell 0.1% (+5.4% y/y) following a 0.5% February increase. Gasoline service station sales jumped 2.1% (17.8% y/y) as gasoline prices rose 8.9% to an average $2.08 per gallon. In the second week of April gasoline prices rose further to an average $2.28.
Sales of nonstore retailers (internet and catalogue) jumped 1.2% m/m (+13.4% y/y).
Building material store sales surged 1.5% (+5.5% y/y) but the y/y gain eased considerably from the earlier pace. The comparison was tough given the 9.7% m/m spike in March 2004.
Economic Policy and the Sustainability of U.S. Productivity Growth from New York Federal Reserve Bank President Timothy F. Geithner are available <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2005/gei050412.html"> here</a>.
The minutes to the latest meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/minutes/20050322.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">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Mar</th>
<th scope="col">Feb</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/usecon/@ED/@ED04/@ED0401/@ED0401.HTM">Retail Sales &amp; Food Services</a></td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding Autos</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Mortgage Applications Recover 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> April 13, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050413b.jpg" width="353">
The Mortgage Bankers Association reported that mortgage applications recovered 6.1% last week to the highest level in four weeks. Nevertheless, the average level so far in April is 3.9% below March which fell 4.8% from February.
Purchase applications reversed all of the prior week&#39;s decline and rose 6.4%. The average so far in April is up 0.5% versus March. During the last ten years there has been a 50% correlation between the y/y change in purchase applications and the change in new plus existing single family home sales.
Applications to refinance recovered all of the prior two weeks&#39; declines with a 5.6% jump though the April average still is down 9.8% from March.
The effective interest rate on a conventional 30-year mortgage rose to 6.22% and the effective rate on a 15-year mortgage rose to 5.85%.
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>.
 Moving Up: Trends in Homeownership and Mortgage Indebtedness from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia can be found <a href="http://www.philadelphiafed.org/files/br/brq105wl.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/@S5/@S5.HTM">MBA Mortgage Applications (3/16/90=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">04/08/05</th>
<th scope="col">04/01/05</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Market Index</td>
<td>683.6</td>
<td>644.5</td>
<td>-13.3%</td>
<td>735.1</td>
<td>1,067.9</td>
<td>799.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Purchase</td>
<td>474.5</td>
<td>446.0</td>
<td>9.8%</td>
<td>454.5</td>
<td>395.1</td>
<td>354.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Refinancing</td>
<td>1,899.6</td>
<td>1,798.8</td>
<td>-33.6%</td>
<td>2,366.8</td>
<td>4,981.8</td>
<td>3,388.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
UK Unemployment Ticks Up in February, But Employment Also Shows Strong Rise 
by <a href="/comment/Stone.html">Carol Stone</a> April 13, 2005


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050413c.jpg" width="353">
Press reports on today&#39;s UK labor force data highlight the increase in unemployment measures. The ILO-defined concept, similar to that in the US, rose in the three months to February by 0.1% to 4.8%. The so-called &quot;claimant count&quot; increased 11,000 in March, with the associated rate rising to 2.7% from 2.6% in February. Wire service headlines and story leads pointed out that this was the largest monthly increase in claimants since May 2003, and noted that it was unfortunate coincidence that the news came on the very day the Prime Minister and the Labour Party begin their quest for reelection next month.
There are offsetting factors, though, that remove some of the sting from these unemployment figures. Firstly, both unemployment rates even at their new, slightly increased levels, remain the second lowest in nearly 30 years. Except for three recent months at 2.6%, the claimant count rate has not been as low as 2.7% since May 1975. The broader ILO unemployment rate was at or above 4.8% from September 1975 through last June; since then, the low was just 4.6% in August. So these latest figures hardly indicate a significant upturn, let alone a major uptrend in unemployment. (The ILO definition represents a three-month moving average centered on January.)<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/050413d.jpg" width="353">
Moreover, employment rose once again and by a larger amount than in the previous several reports. The labor force measure, the number of people saying they have jobs, rose 72,000 to 28.64 million, still another a new high. This too is a 3-month centered moving average for January, compared to the December figure.
The average earnings index (AEI) for February (a 3-month moving average ending in February) was up 4.7% on a year ago, compared with 4.4% in the previous couple of reports. However, the acceleration was due to bonus payments, as the underlying base earnings measure eased to 4.3% from 4.4%.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/UK/UK.HTM">United Kingdom</a> Seasonally adjusted data</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 2005</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 2004</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
<td></td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>4.8*</td>
<td>4.7*</td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>5.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Claimant Count (thous)</td>
<td>829</td>
<td>818</td>
<td>814</td>
<td>824</td>
<td>854</td>
<td>933</td>
<td>947</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Employment (mil)</td>
<td></td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>28.64*</td>
<td>28.57*</td>
<td>28.44</td>
<td>28.18</td>
<td>27.91</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Change (thous)</td>
<td></td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>+72K</td>
<td>+46K</td>
<td>+0.9%</td>
<td>+0.9%</td>
<td>+0.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Average Earnings Index Incl Bonuses: &quot;Headline Rate&quot;(%)**</td>
<td></td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Average Earnings Index Ex Bonuses: &quot;Headline Rate&quot; (%)**</td>
<td></td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>4.2</td>
<td>3.6</td>
<td>4.0</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/050412g.jpg" width="353">
China and India recently pledged to increase their bilateral trade from the $14 billion reached in 2003 to $20 billion by 2008 and $30 billion by 2010.
Data enabling one to analyze these prospects are available in the Haver data base, IMFDOTM, which lists monthly exports to and imports from some 210 countries and 24 aggregates. Because it is so detailed, the information tends is published with a long lag. For example, the latest data available today is for November, 2004
One of the first things that emerges from the bilateral trade data between China and India is the contrast between the magnitude of foreign trade of the two countries. In 2003, the last full year available, China&#39;s total exports amounted to $428.3 billion and imports, $412.8. India&#39;s total exports were $60.8 billion and imports, $69.8 billion. The monthly data for total exports of the two countries are shown in the attached chart.
Not only is there a big difference in the importance of total trade, there is also a significant difference in the importance of the bilateral trade to each country. Although the bilateral trade between India and China has been small, it has been more important to India than to China. India&#39;s exports to China amounted to 4.5% of total exports in 2003, while imports from China amounted to 5.3% of total imports. China&#39;s exports to India, in contrast, were only 0.8% of total exports and imports from India were 1.0% of total imports. In trade among all the Asian countries, India&#39;s exports to China were 16.5% of total exports to Asia and imports from China were 24.0% of Indian imports from Asia. China&#39;s exports to India accounted for only 2.3% of total Chinese exports to Asia and imports from India were only 2.7% of total Chinese imports from Asia.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/emerging.htm">INDIA TRADE IN 2003</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mil US$</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">%</th>
<th scope="col">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Mil US$</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Exports to China</td>
<td>2,713.3</td>
<td>Percent of Total</td>
<td>4.5</td>
<td>Total Trade with China</td>
<td>6,447.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Exports to Asia</td>
<td>16,452.8</td>
<td>Percent of Asia</td>
<td>16.5</td>
<td>Total Trade with Asia</td>
<td>31,983.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Exports&nbsp;</td>
<td>30,793.7</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>Total Trade</td>
<td>130,620.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Imports from China</td>
<td>3,734.2</td>
<td>Percent of Total</td>
<td>5.3</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Imports from Asia</td>
<td>15,531.1</td>
<td>Percent of Asia</td>
<td>24.0</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Imports</td>
<td>69,826.5</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/emerging.htm">CHINA TRADE IN 2003</a></td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Exports to India</td>
<td>3,343.6</td>
<td>Percent of Total</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>Total Trade with India</td>
<td>7,595.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Exports to Asia</td>
<td>145,055.5</td>
<td>Percent of Asia</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>Total Trade with Asia</td>
<td>301,630.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Exports&nbsp;</td>
<td>428,273.9</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>Total Trade</td>
<td>841,110.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Imports from India</td>
<td>4,251.5</td>
<td>Percent of Total</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Imports from Asia</td>
<td>156,574.5</td>
<td>Percent of Asia</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Imports</td>
<td>412,836.6</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

China and India recently pledged to increase their bilateral trade from the $14 billion reached in 2003 to $20 billion by 2008 and $30 billion by 2010. Data enabling one to analyze these prospects are available in the Haver data base, [...]

Trade Between China and India

USD/EUR exchange rate uncoupling from interest rate differential

Widespread downgrading of 2025 GDP outlook

Trade and fiscal policy uncertainty has exploded with the new administration

Much lower US electricity costs gives it a competitive advantage

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

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

US policy gyrations boosting policy uncertainty worldwide

Expected tariff hikes have boosted inflation expectations

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

US economy expected to outperform other major economies in 2025

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

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

Heavy US manufacturing states underperforming while Sun Belt states outperforming

Rising long-term yields a global phenomenon

US financial market concerns shifting from growth to inflation

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

Policy uncertainty has surged since the US national elections.

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

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

Headline US PCE inflation elevated by sticky services prices

US and global equity prices have recently diverged

US leading global upturn in economic surprises

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

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

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

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

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


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

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

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

250502A5.jpg

250502B5.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

250502C5.jpg

250502D5.jpg

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

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

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

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

250502X5.jpg

250502F5.jpg

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

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

Winnie Tapasanun

250502F32.jpg

250502G32.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

250502H32.jpg

250502I32.jpg

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

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

Robert Brusca

250502E.jpg

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

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

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

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

250502.jpg

Globally Manufacturing Weakens

Andrew Cates

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

250501Z1.jpg

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

250501Z2.jpg

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

250501Z3.jpg

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

250501Z4.jpg

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

250501Z5.jpg

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

250501Z6.jpg

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

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

Charts of the Week: Tariff Truce, Tenuous Trust

250501F20.jpg

250501G20.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

250501H20.jpg

250501I20.jpg

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

Economy in Brief: April 2005

Jump to:

Initial Claims For Jobless Insurance Down Again

JOLTS: U.S. Job Openings Steady

JOLTS: U.S. Job Openings Steady

UK Unemployment Ticks Up in February, But Employment Also Shows Strong Rise

Mortgage Applications Recover

U.S. Retail Sales' Gain Light

U.S. Retail Sales' Gain Light

Trade Between China and India