Tom Moeller

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/140303a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="large" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140303a.png" align="left"></a>
      <b>Personal income gained 0.3% during January (4.1% y/y) after </b>little
      change in December. The gain beat expectations for a 0.2% rise in the
      Action Economics Forecast Survey. Disposable personal income increased
      0.4% (4.0% y/y). Wages &amp; salaries advanced 0.2% and the 3.6%
      year-to-year increase was improved. To the upside, transfer receipts
      jumped 1.2% (3.2% y/y), rental earnings rose 0.9% (7.9% y/y) and
      proprietors income gained 0.3% (4.7% y/y). Working lower were dividend
      income by 0.4% (+17.2% y/y) and interest income by 0.3% (+1.1 y/y).
      Adjusted for price inflation disposable income recovered 0.3% (-2.8% y/y).</p>
      
      <p><b>Personal consumption expenditures matched
      expectations and edged 0.1% higher (3.5% y/y) </b>after a 0.1% December
      uptick. Late-2013 outlay levels were revised sharply lower. Motor vehicle
      purchases slipped 0.1% (-0.3% y/y) after a hefty 4.7% December drop while
      spending on furnishings &amp; household equipment slipped 0.2% (+1.4%
      y/y). Clothing purchases were off 1.2% (+0.1% y/y). Gasoline expenditures
      plunged 3.3% (+2.9% y/y) due to lower prices &amp; volumes. Services
      outlays jumped 0.9% (4.1% y/y) led by a 1.6% rise (4.7% y/y) in health
      care spending. Adjusted for inflation, PCE gained 0.3% (2.2% y/y).</p>
      
      <p>The <b>personal savings rate</b> held steady at 4.3% but earlier
      figures were raised with the revised spending levels. Nevertheless, the
      savings rate remained close to its lowest since January 2008. The total
      amount of personal saving has been trending lower since 2009.</p>
      
      <p><b>The PCE chain price index ticked up 0.1% (1.2% y/y) in January</b>.
      The price index excluding food &amp; energy also rose a steady 0.1% and 1.1%
      y/y, the slowest annual increase since early-2011.<b> </b>Durable goods
      prices slipped 0.1% (-2.2% y/y) while nondurable goods prices were
      unchanged (0.7% y/y). Prices for services gained 0.2% (1.9% y/y).</p>
      
      <p>The personal income &amp; consumption figures are available in Haver's <b>USECON</b>
      and <b>USNA</b> databases. The consensus expectation figure is in the <b>AS1REPNA</b>
      database.</p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/140303b_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140303b.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/140303c_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140303c.png"></a></p>
      
      <table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Personal Income &amp;
              Outlays (%)</th>
            <th scope="col" >Jan</th>
            <th scope="col" >Dec</th>
            <th scope="col" >Nov</th>
            <th scope="col" >Y/Y</th>
            <th scope="col" >2013</th>
            <th scope="col" >2012</th>
            <th scope="col" >2011</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Personal Income</td>
            <td  >0.3</td>
            <td  >-0.0</td>
            <td  >0.3</td>
            <td  >4.1</td>
            <td  >2.8</td>
            <td  >4.2</td>
            <td  >6.1</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Wages &amp; Salaries</td>
            <td  >0.2</td>
            <td  >-0.1</td>
            <td  >0.6</td>
            <td  >3.6</td>
            <td  >3.1</td>
            <td  >4.3</td>
            <td  >4.1</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Disposable Personal Income</td>
            <td  >0.4</td>
            <td  >-0.1</td>
            <td  >0.2</td>
            <td  >4.0</td>
            <td  >1.9</td>
            <td  >3.9</td>
            <td  >4.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Personal Consumption Expenditures</td>
            <td  >0.4</td>
            <td  >0.1</td>
            <td  >0.5</td>
            <td  >3.5</td>
            <td  >3.1</td>
            <td  >4.1</td>
            <td  >5.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Personal Saving Rate</td>
            <td  >4.3</td>
            <td  >4.3</td>
            <td  >4.4</td>
            <td  >3.6<br>
              (Jan '13)</td>
            <td  >4.5</td>
            <td  >5.6</td>
            <td  >5.7</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >PCE Chain Price Index</td>
            <td  >0.1</td>
            <td  >0.2</td>
            <td  >0.1</td>
            <td  >1.2</td>
            <td  >1.1</td>
            <td  >1.8</td>
            <td  >2.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Less Food &amp; Energy</td>
            <td  >0.1</td>
            <td  >0.1</td>
            <td  >0.1</td>
            <td  >1.1</td>
            <td  >1.2</td>
            <td  >1.8</td>
            <td  >1.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Real Disposable Income</td>
            <td  >0.3</td>
            <td  >-0.2</td>
            <td  >0.1</td>
            <td  >2.8</td>
            <td  >0.7</td>
            <td  >2.0</td>
            <td  >2.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Real Personal Consumption
              Expenditures</td>
            <td  >0.3</td>
            <td  >-0.1</td>
            <td  >0.4</td>
            <td  >2.2</td>
            <td  >2.0</td>
            <td  >2.2</td>
            <td  >2.5</td>
 </tr>
              </tbody>
            </table>
            </span>
</body></html>

Personal income gained 0.3% during January (4.1% y/y) after little change in December. The gain beat expectations for a 0.2% rise in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Disposable personal income increased 0.4% (4.0% y/y). Wages & [...]

U.S. Personal Income, Outlays & Savings Firm

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/140228g_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140228g.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/140228h_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140228h.png"></a></p>
      
      <p>The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that <b>pending
      sales of single-family homes ticked up 0.1% during January </b>following a
      5.8% December decline, revised from an 8.7% shortfall. The latest uptick
      followed six consecutive months of sharp decline. Therefore, sales were
      14.3% below the peak last June. Expectations had been for a 1.8% rise
      according to Bloomberg. Data were revised back through 2011.</p>
      
      <p>Home sales were mixed across the country last month. In the South,
      sales rose 3.5% (-5.5% y/y) following a 5.7% December drop. Sales remained
      down 7.7% from the May peak. In the Northeast, a 2.3% rise (-5.3% y/y)
      followed two months of sharp decline. Sales remained 12.3% lower than the
      peak last April. In the West, sales declined 4.8% (-17.5% y/y) and have
      fallen in each of the last seven months, a decline totaling more than
      one-quarter from the peak. In the Midwest, sales fell 2.5% last month
      (-9.3% y/y), off for the seventh straight month and down 17.6% from the
      May peak.</p>
      
      <p><b>The pending home sales figures are analogous to the new home sales</b>
      data from the Commerce Department. They measure home sales when the sales
      contract is signed, not at the time the sale is closed. In developing the
      model for the index, the NAR demonstrated that the level of monthly
      sales-contract activity parallels the level of closed existing-home sales
      in the following two months. The series dates back to 2001 and the data
      are available in Haver's <b>PREALTOR </b>database.</p>
      
      <table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Pending Home Sales (%)</th>
            <th scope="col" >Jan</th>
            <th scope="col" >Dec</th>
            <th scope="col" >Nov</th>
            <th scope="col" >Y/Y </th>
            <th scope="col" >2013</th>
            <th scope="col" >2012</th>
            <th scope="col" >2011</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Total</td>
            <td  >0.1</td>
            <td  >-5.8</td>
            <td  >-1.2</td>
            <td  >-9.0</td>
            <td  >4.5</td>
            <td  >11.3</td>
            <td  >1.3</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Northeast</td>
            <td  >2.3</td>
            <td  >-7.3</td>
            <td  >-2.0</td>
            <td  >-5.3</td>
            <td  >6.1</td>
            <td  >16.6</td>
            <td  >-4.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Midwest</td>
            <td  >-2.5</td>
            <td  >-5.2</td>
            <td  >-3.1</td>
            <td  >-9.3</td>
            <td  >10.4</td>
            <td  >17.7</td>
            <td  >2.2</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >South</td>
            <td  >3.5</td>
            <td  >-5.7</td>
            <td  >0.0</td>
            <td  >-5.5</td>
            <td  >5.4</td>
            <td  >12.7</td>
            <td  >1.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >West</td>
            <td  >-4.8</td>
            <td  >-5.9</td>
            <td  >-0.3</td>
            <td  >-17.5</td>
            <td  >-3.6</td>
            <td  >1.2</td>
            <td  >3.4</td>
   </tr>
              </tbody>
            </table>
            </span>
</body></html>

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that pending sales of single-family homes ticked up 0.1% during January following a 5.8% December decline, revised from an 8.7% shortfall. The latest uptick followed six consecutive [...]

U.S. Pending Home Sales Remain Depressed by Winter Storms

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/140228a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140228a.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/140228b_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140228b.png"></a></p>
      
            <p>Real GDP growth for Q4'13 eased more than initially estimated.
            The growth estimate was lowered by the Department of Commerce to 2.4% (2.5% y/y) 
            from 3.2% in the advance release, down sharply from 4.1% in the third
            quarter. The gain roughly matched consensus expectations for a 2.5%
            rise in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. For all of last year
            growth moderated to 1.9%, down nearly a full percentage point from
            2012.</p>
            
            <p>Domestic final sales rose at a lessened 1.2% rate (1.5% y/y) last
            quarter. Growth in personal consumption expenditures was lowered to
            2.6% (2.1% y/y). Spending growth on durable goods eased sharply to
            2.5% (5.6% y/y) as motor vehicle purchases slipped (+2.1% y/y).
            Spending on home furnishings &amp; appliances rose at a 2.4% rate
            (7.1% y/y), the weakest gain since Q2 2012. Nondurable spending,
            however, jumped at a 3.5% rate (2.7% y/y) led by a surge in
            purchases of apparel. Growth in spending on services still improved
            sharply to 2.2% (1.4% y/y). To the upside, business fixed investment
            growth was nearly doubled to 7.3% (3.0% y/y). Residential investment
            showed a lessened 8.8% decline (+6.6% y/y) but spending still jumped
            12.1% for all of 2013. The decline in government spending was
            deepened to 5.5% (-2.5% y/y). The fall subtracted roughly a full
            percentage point from Q4 GDP growth. Defense spending fell at a 14.5%
            rate (-6.9% y/y) while state &amp; local government spending growth
            eased 0.5% (+0.1% y/y). Final sales to private domestic purchasers
            grew at a 2.8% rate (2.4% y/y), little changed from the advance
            estimate.</p>
            
            <p><a href="/comment/140228c_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140228c.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/140228d_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140228d.png"></a></p>
            
            <p>The effects from inventory investment and foreign trade were
            lessened but remained positive. A faster rate of inventory
            accumulation added 0.1 percentage point to Q4 GDP growth following
            the 1.7 point addition in Q3. A lessened foreign trade deficit added
            one percentage point to Q4 growth. The improvement owed last quarter
            to a 9.4% rise (4.9% y/y) in exports versus a 1.5% gain (2.8% y/y)
            in imports.</p>
            
            <p>Price inflation moderated in Q4, though not as much as initially
            estimated. The chain-type GDP price index rose at a 1.6% rate (1.4%
            y/y) versus the advance estimate of a 1.3% increase and a 2.0% Q3
            gain. A 1.3% rise had been expected. The personal consumption price
            index rose at a 1.0% rate (1.0% y/y) while the business fixed
            investment price index increase held q/q at 1.2% (1.2% y/y). The
            residential investment price index surged at an 8.2% rate (6.2%
            y/y), the fastest y/y growth since early 2006.</p>
            
            <p>The latest GDP figures can be found in Haver's <b>USECON</b> and <b>USNA</b>
            databases; <b>USNA</b> contains basically all of the Bureau of
            Economic Analysis' detail in the national accounts, including the
            new integrated economics accounts and the recently added GDP data
            for U.S. Territories. The Action Economics consensus estimates can
            be found in <b>AS1REPNA</b>.</p>
            
            <p><a href="/comment/140228e_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140228e.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/140228f_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140228f.png"></a></p>
      
      <table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

              <thead>
                <tr>
                  <th class="firstcol" scope="col" ><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E7/@E701/@E701.HTM" ;>Chained
                    2009 $, %, AR</a></th>
                  <th scope="col"  >Q4'13&nbsp; (2nd
                    Estimate)</th>
                  <th scope="col"  >Q4'13 (Advance)</th>
                  <th scope="col"  >Q3'13</th>
                  <th scope="col"  >Q2'13</th>
                  <th scope="col"  >Q4 Y/Y</th>
                  <th scope="col"  >2013</th>
                  <th scope="col"  >2012</th>
                  <th scope="col"  >2011</th>
                </tr>
              </thead>
              <tbody>
                <tr>
                  <td class="firstcol" >Gross Domestic Product</td>
                  <td  >2.4</td>
                  <td  >3.2</td>
                  <td  >4.1</td>
                  <td  >2.5</td>
                  <td  >2.5</td>
                  <td  >1.9</td>
                  <td  >2.8</td>
                  <td  >1.8</td>
                </tr>
                <tr class="odd">
                  <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Inventory Effect</td>
                  <td  >0.1</td>
                  <td  >0.4</td>
                  <td  >1.7</td>
                  <td  >0.4</td>
                  <td  >0.2</td>
                  <td  >0.2</td>
                  <td  >0.2</td>
                  <td  >-0.2</td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                  <td class="firstcol" >Final Sales</td>
                  <td  >2.3</td>
                  <td  >2.8</td>
                  <td  >2.5</td>
                  <td  >2.1</td>
                  <td  >1.7</td>
                  <td  >1.7</td>
                  <td  >2.6</td>
                  <td  >2.0</td>
                </tr>
                <tr class="odd">
                  <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Foreign Trade Effect</td>
                  <td  >1.0</td>
                  <td  >1.3</td>
                  <td  >0.1</td>
                  <td  >-0.1</td>
                  <td  >0.2</td>
                  <td  >0.2</td>
                  <td  >0.2</td>
                  <td  >0.2</td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                  <td class="firstcol" >Domestic Final Sales</td>
                  <td  >1.2</td>
                  <td  >1.4</td>
                  <td  >2.3</td>
                  <td  >2.1</td>
                  <td  >1.5</td>
                  <td  >1.5</td>
                  <td  >2.4</td>
                  <td  >1.8</td>
                </tr>
                <tr class="grey3">
                  <td class="firstcol" colSpan="9" ><b>Demand
                    Components</b></td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                  <td class="firstcol" >Personal Consumption</td>
                  <td  >2.6</td>
                  <td  >3.3</td>
                  <td  >2.0</td>
                  <td  >1.8</td>
                  <td  >2.1</td>
                  <td  >2.0</td>
                  <td  >2.2</td>
                  <td  >2.5</td>
                </tr>
                <tr class="odd">
                  <td class="firstcol" >Business Fixed Investment</td>
                  <td  >7.3</td>
                  <td  >3.8</td>
                  <td  >4.8</td>
                  <td  >4.7</td>
                  <td  >3.0</td>
                  <td  >2.8</td>
                  <td  >7.3</td>
                  <td  >7.6</td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                  <td class="firstcol" >Residential Investment</td>
                  <td  >-8.8</td>
                  <td  >-9.8</td>
                  <td  >10.3</td>
                  <td  >14.2</td>
                  <td  >6.6</td>
                  <td  >12.1</td>
                  <td  >12.9</td>
                  <td  >0.5</td>
                </tr>
                <tr class="odd">
                  <td class="firstcol" >Government Spending</td>
                  <td  >-5.5</td>
                  <td  >-4.9</td>
                  <td  >0.4</td>
                  <td  >-0.4</td>
                  <td  >-2.5</td>
                  <td  >-2.3</td>
                  <td  >-1.0</td>
                  <td  >-3.2</td>
                </tr>
                <tr class="grey3">
                  <td class="firstcol" colSpan="9" ><b>Chain-Type
                    Price Index</b></td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                  <td class="firstcol" >GDP&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
                  <td  >1.6</td>
                  <td  >1.3</td>
                  <td  >2.0</td>
                  <td  >0.6</td>
                  <td  >1.4</td>
                  <td  >1.4</td>
                  <td  >1.7</td>
                  <td  >2.0</td>
                </tr>
                <tr class="odd">
                  <td class="firstcol" >Personal Consumption</td>
                  <td  >1.0</td>
                  <td  >0.7</td>
                  <td  >1.9</td>
                  <td  >-0.1</td>
                  <td  >1.0</td>
                  <td  >1.1</td>
                  <td  >1.8</td>
                  <td  >2.4</td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                  <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Less Food/Energy</td>
                  <td  >1.3</td>
                  <td  >1.1</td>
                  <td  >1.4</td>
                  <td  >0.6</td>
                  <td  >1.2</td>
                  <td  >1.2</td>
                  <td  >1.8</td>
                  <td  >1.4</td>
                 </tr>
              </tbody>
            </table>
            </span>
</body></html>

Real GDP growth for Q4'13 eased more than initially estimated. The growth estimate was lowered by the Department of Commerce to 2.4% (2.5% y/y) from 3.2% in the advance release, down sharply from 4.1% in the third quarter. The gain [...]

U.S. GDP Growth is Revised Lower; Price Inflation Raised

<html>

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<title>U</title>
</head>

<body>


<div id="footer" class="sprites">
  <ul>
  </ul>
</div>
<div id="content">
  <div id="rightside">
    <div id="entire" class="col">
      <br>
      <span id="articletext">
      <p>New orders for durable goods fell 1.0% during January (+4.6 y/y)
      following a 5.3% December drop, revised from a 4.3% decline. The latest
      decline matched expectations in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. A
      5.6% drop (+13.6% y/y) in orders for transportation equipment weighed on
      last month's total. Nondefense aircraft &amp; parts orders fell 20.2%
      (+56.7% y/y) after December's 22.3% shortfall. Motor vehicle &amp; parts
      orders also softened, posting a 2.2% drop last month (+3.8% y/y) on the
      heels of a 6.6% decline. </p>
      <p>Outside of the transportation sector, new orders showed mixed
      performance as a 1.1% gain (1.2% y/y) countered December's 1.9% decline.
      Fabricated metal orders led the increase with a 7.3% rise (-9.1 y/y).
      Orders for computers &amp; electronic products followed with a 4.7% rise
      (1.7% y/y). Working to the downside, primary metal orders were off 2.3%
      (+7.0% y/y and electrical equipment, appliances &amp; components orders
      declined 2.1% (+3.7% y/y). Machinery orders slipped 0.4% (+1.5% y/y).
      Nondefense capital goods orders fell 3.9% (+5.6% y/y) reflecting the
      weakened aircraft bookings. Excluding aircraft, however, orders improved
      1.7% (-0.8% y/y) and reversed December's decline.</p>
      <p>Shipments of durable goods were off 0.4% (+3.4% y/y) in January
      following December's 1.8% fall. Shipments excluding the transportation
      sector slipped 0.5% (+2.7% y/y), the first material decline in nine months.
      Unfilled orders ticked 0.1% higher (7.1% y/y) while order backlogs outside
      of the transportation sector gained 0.3% (5.7% y/y). Inventories of
      durable goods improved 0.3% (3.7% y/y) after December's 0.9% jump.
      Inventories outside the transportation sector were roughly unchanged (1.4%
      y/y).</p>
      <p>The durable goods figures are available in Haver's <b>USECON </b>database.
      The Action Economics consensus forecast figure is in the <b>AS1REPNA</b>
      datab.</p>
      <p><b>Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress</b> by Fed Chair
      Janet L. Yellen can be found here&nbsp; <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20140211a.htm">http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20140211a.htm</a></p>
      <table class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0" width="1871">
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="984">Durable Goods NAICS
              Classification</th>
            <th width="126">Jan</th>
            <th width="126">Dec</th>
            <th width="126">Nov</th>
            <th width="126">Y/Y</th>
            <th width="126">2013</th>
            <th width="126">2012</th>
            <th width="127">2011</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="984">New Orders (SA, %)</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">-1.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">-5.3</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">2.7</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">4.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">5.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">4.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="127">11.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp; Transportation</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">-5.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">-12.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">8.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">13.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">7.7</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">8.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="127">14.9</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="984">Total Excluding Transportation</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">1.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">-1.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">0.2</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">1.2</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">3.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">2.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="127">9.5</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp; Nondefense Capital Goods</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">-3.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">-6.5</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">8.2</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">5.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">8.6</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">3.7</td>
            <td align="center" width="127">15.3</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="984">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding
              Aircraft</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">1.7</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">-1.8</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">3.0</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">-0.8</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">5.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">2.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="127">11.6</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="984">Shipments</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">-0.4</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">-1.8</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">1.4</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">3.4</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">3.7</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">6.4</td>
            <td align="center" width="127">9.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" width="984">Inventories</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">0.3</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">0.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">0.3</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">3.7</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">3.7</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">4.5</td>
            <td align="center" width="127">10.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" width="984">Unfilled Orders</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">0.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">0.2</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">0.9</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">7.1</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">6.8</td>
            <td align="center" width="126">3.7</td>
            <td align="center" width="127">10.0</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      </span>
    </div>
  </div>
</div>

<div id="footer" class="sprites">
  <ul>
  </ul>
</div>
<div id="content">
  <div id="rightside">
    <div id="entire" class="col">
      <span id="articletitle">U.S. Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance
      Slip</span><br>
      <span id="byline">by <a href="http://www.haver.com/comment/Moeller.html">Tom
      Moeller</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;February 27, 2014</span><span id="articletext">
      <p>&nbsp;Initial claims for unemployment insurance edged down to 336,000
      (-8.2% y/y) during the week ended February 15 versus an unrevised 339,000
      during the week prior. Expectations had been for 335,000 claims in the
      Action Economic forecast survey. The four-week moving average of initial
      claims ticked up to 338,500.</p>
      <p>Continuing claims for unemployment insurance in the week ended February
      8 increased to 2.981 million (-5.8% y/y). The four-week moving average
      slipped to 2.960 million and still was near its highest level since early
      August. The insured rate of unemployment nudged up to 2.3% from a
      downwardly revised 2.2%. This particular count covers only
      &quot;regular&quot; programs and does not include all extended benefit and
      other specialized jobless insurance programs. In the week of February 1,
      the latest available, the total of all benefit recipients was
      little-changed at 3.525 million (-36.8% y/y). This broader measure is not
      seasonally adjusted. It compares to a cycle peak of 12.060 million in
      January 2010 and pre-recession figures that averaged 2.596 million in
      2007.</p>
      <p>By state, the insured rate of unemployment continued to vary greatly
      with Louisiana (1.24%), Tennessee (1.43%),&nbsp; Florida (1.44%), Texas
      (1.64%), North Carolina (1.89%), Indiana (2.14%) and Ohio (2.61%) at the
      low end of the range. At the high end were New York (3.10%), California
      (3.45%), Massachusetts (3.45%), Wisconsin (3.65%), Illinois (3.78%),
      Pennsylvania (3.84%) and Connecticut (4.01%). These data are not
      seasonally adjusted.</p>
      <p>Data on weekly unemployment insurance are contained in Haver's <b>WEEKLY</b>
      database and they are summarized monthly in <b>USECON</b>. Data for
      individual states are in <b>REGIONW</b>. The expectations figure is from
      the Action Economics survey, carried in the <b>AS1REPNA</b> database. </p>
      <table class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0" width="1871">
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" 0801 width="625">Unemployment Insurance (000s)</th>
            <th 0801 width="177">02/22/14</th>
            <th 0801 width="177">02/15/14</th>
            <th 0801 width="177">02/08/14</th>
            <th 0801 width="177">Y/Y %</th>
            <th 0801 width="178">2013</th>
            <th 0801 width="178">2012</th>
            <th 0801 width="178">2011</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" 0801 width="625">Initial Claims</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="177">348</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="177">334</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="177">340</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="177">0.0</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="178">343</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="178">374</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="178">409</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" 0801 width="625">Continuing Claims</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="177">--</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="177">2,964</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="177">2,956</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="177">-4.4</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="178">2,980</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="178">3,319</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="178">3,742</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" 0801 width="625">Insured Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="177">--</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="177">2.3</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="177">2.3</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="177">2.4<br>
              (2/13)</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="178">2.3</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="178">2.6</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="178">3.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" 0801 width="625">Total &quot;All Programs&quot;
              (NSA)</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="177">--</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="177">--</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="177">3.486 mil.</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="177">-39.5</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="178">4.659 mil.</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="178">6.047 mil.</td>
            <td 0801 align="center" width="178">7.750 mil.</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      </span>
    </div>
  </div>
</div>

<div id="footer" class="sprites">
  <ul>
  </ul>
</div>

</body>

</html>


New orders for durable goods fell 1.0% during January (+4.6 y/y) following a 5.3% December drop, revised from a 4.3% decline. The latest decline matched expectations in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. A 5.6% drop (+13.6% y/y) in [...]

U.S. Durable Goods Order Decline Reflects a Weaker Transportation Sector

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/140227j_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140227j.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/140227k_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140227k.png"></a></p>
      
      <p>The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City reported that its February Composite 
      index of 10th District factory sector activity dipped to 4 from 5 during January. 
      The composite index is an average of the production, new orders, employment, supplier 
      delivery time, and raw materials inventory indexes. The Bank cited severe winter weather 
      as responsible for holding back the current index component readings. Shipments and 
      production, nevertheless, improved versus January and versus one year ago.</p>
      
      <p>Expectations component readings remained above current activity indexes, suggesting 
      future improvement. Nevertheless, in February the index of expected business conditions 
      in six months retreated as the new orders, production and employment components fell. 
      Remaining near its recovery high was the index for capital expenditures in six months. 
      Also, inventory levels were viewed as being higher in six months. These projected 
      improvements were offset to some extent by a lower reading for expected exports.</p>
      
      <p>The diffusion indexes are calculated as the percentage of total
      respondents reporting increases minus the percentage reporting declines.
      The survey included 94 responses from plants in Colorado, Kansas,
      Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming northern New Mexico. Data for the Kansas City
      Fed Survey can be found in Haver's <b>SURVEYS</b> database.</p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/140227l_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140227l.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/140227m_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140227m.png"></a></p>
      
      <table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
  
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" 0801 >Kansas City Federal Reserve
              Manufacturing Survey</th>
            <th 0801 >Feb</th>
            <th 0801 >Jan</th>
            <th 0801 >Dec</th>
            <th 0801 >Y/Y </th>
            <th 0801 >2013</th>
            <th 0801 >2012</th>
            <th 0801 >2011</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" 0801 >Conditions Versus One Month
              Ago (% Balance)</td>
            <td 0801  >4</td>
            <td 0801  >5</td>
            <td 0801  >-3</td>
            <td 0801  >-8</td>
            <td 0801  >0</td>
            <td 0801  >4</td>
            <td 0801  >9</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" 0801 >&nbsp;&nbsp; New Orders Volume</td>
            <td 0801  >5</td>
            <td 0801  >5</td>
            <td 0801  >1</td>
            <td 0801  >-23</td>
            <td 0801  >1</td>
            <td 0801  >0</td>
            <td 0801  >5</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" 0801 >&nbsp;&nbsp; Number of
              Employees</td>
            <td 0801  >3</td>
            <td 0801  >11</td>
            <td 0801  >0</td>
            <td 0801  >2</td>
            <td 0801  >-2</td>
            <td 0801  >5</td>
            <td 0801  >11</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" 0801 >&nbsp;&nbsp; Prices Received
              for Finished Product</td>
            <td 0801  >7</td>
            <td 0801  >8</td>
            <td 0801  >2</td>
            <td 0801  >4</td>
            <td 0801  >3</td>
            <td 0801  >5</td>
            <td 0801  >12</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" 0801 >Expected Conditions in Six
              Months </td>
            <td 0801  >11</td>
            <td 0801  >26</td>
            <td 0801  >15</td>
            <td 0801  >5</td>
            <td 0801  >10</td>
            <td 0801  >12</td>
            <td 0801  >16</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" 0801 >&nbsp;&nbsp; New Orders Volume</td>
            <td 0801  >23</td>
            <td 0801  >35</td>
            <td 0801  >24</td>
            <td 0801  >15</td>
            <td 0801  >18</td>
            <td 0801  >21</td>
            <td 0801  >24</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" 0801 >&nbsp;&nbsp; Number of
              Employees</td>
            <td 0801  >6</td>
            <td 0801  >29</td>
            <td 0801  >15</td>
            <td 0801  >3</td>
            <td 0801  >9</td>
            <td 0801  >13</td>
            <td 0801  >17</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" 0801 >&nbsp;&nbsp; Prices Received
              for Finished Product</td>
            <td 0801  >25</td>
            <td 0801  >30</td>
            <td 0801  >18</td>
            <td 0801  >24</td>
            <td 0801  >24</td>
            <td 0801  >24</td>
            <td 0801  >29</td>
          </tr>
              </tbody>
            </table>
            </span>
</body></html>

The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City reported that its February Composite index of 10th District factory sector activity dipped to 4 from 5 during January. The composite index is an average of the production, new orders, [...]

Kansas City Fed Survey Depressed by Weather but Expectations Suggest Recovery

Robert Brusca

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>

	  
      <br>
      
      
      <p></p>

     
<p><a href="/comment/140227i_big.png" name="modal"><img class="large" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140227i.png" align="left"></a>
	  
The EMU overall sentiment gauge and the reading on the EU overall rose in February. The sector readings for the whole of the EU show weakening consumer confidence in the month, a flat construction sector and a small rise in the industrial sector. Retailing and services improved more substantially.
</p><p>
Of the 16 members that have reported on this basis, only five of them showed overall sentiment declines in February. The rebound is widespread. Of the 48 various monthly changes for the 17 EMU members and the EMU itself over the past three months, only 17 have showed declines; that is about one-third of the one month changes for this group of eighteen over three months. 
</p><p>
We also present the queue standings for the EU's various sectors and for the EMU and its key members. EMU sentiment as a whole stands only in the 47th percentile of its historic queue. For the broader EU, the standing is in the 62nd percentile of its historic queue.
</p><p>
The sectors show raw up-minus down diffusion scores in the table. The raw scores show the strongest raw readings are for services and retail. Next the industrial sector has raw reading of minus 2.3, consumer confidence is at minus 9.3 and construction is at minus 25. However, growth is about changes and this month only consumer confidence backtracked.    
</p><p>
The EU region and the sector readings, therefore, are stronger than the EMU readings. The EU sits in the 62nd percentile of its historic range. The EMU indicator sits in the 47th percentile of its range. The EU contains all the countries of EMU and more. Those other countries of the EU are generally stronger than the run-of-the-mill EMU member. One of them is the UK whose values are presented in the table at the bottom.
</p><p>
Another way to understand the current readings is to evaluate them versus their respective historic means.  On that basis, irrespective of whether the absolute reading is positive or negative, all EU sectors are above their historic means except construction. However, we can also look at the standing of each indicator in its historic queue, a statistic that speaks a lot more directly to the median, as for each country or sector, the median will lie at the 50% mark of its range by definition.
</p><p>
The EMU countries show stratified rankings. Only 3 countries are in the top 30% of their historic queue while six are in their lower 30th percentile. The average queue ranking of the members in the EMU is the 41.7 percentile. That compares to an EMU statistic of the 47.3 percentile. The EMU-wide figure is a weighted average. It indicates that the larger economies are doing better than the smaller economies. Germany, the largest EMU economy, has a queue ranking in its 73.7 percentile. Malta, a small economy with a shorter data history, is the only country doing relatively better than Germany.
</p><p>
Across EMU expected unemployment is back to a ranking in the 49.4 percentile. Expectations for hiring are getting better; the fastest expected improvement is in the manufacturing sector and next in the retail sector.
</p><p>
In looking at the service sector's queue rankings in February, Germany stands at 69.7% with France at 18.4%, Italy at 35.1% and Spain at 42.2%. Germany lives in a world of its own and its large economic weight tends to dress up the EMU total which, for services, stands at the 39.5% level. You can only imagine how weak other member readings are with Germany pulling such a high weight and having a strong reading to boot. Similarly consumer confidence across countries shows Germany at the 77.3% mark, France at 29.9%, Italy at 36.3% and Spain at 38.2%. Among the large economies, Germany again is in a world of its own. Largely due to the German weight, the EMU standing is at the 52.6 percentile. There is still a lot but not as much divergence for the industrial sector. Still, the German index is at 74.3%, France at 51.0%, Italy at 44.3% and Spain at 43.1%. The EMU metric is at the 65th percentile.
</p><p>
These are only a few samplings of the divergences we see by sector. The table provides a hint of how great the divergences must be if we look at the circumstances of the countries whose aggregate measures are among the worst. And it is not like there are only a few stragglers that are lagging: six of the 16 countries detailed in the table are still in the bottom one-third of their respective historic ranges for economic sentiment. 
</p><p>
These divergences are the reason that I remain on guard in evaluating the EMU economy and its prospects. There is so much yet to do and so many risks that are internal to the community and are not addressed by looking at the state of the aggregate, weighted, and anesthetized measures.
</p>


<p><img border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140227.png" width="660" height="690"></p></html>

The EMU overall sentiment gauge and the reading on the EU overall rose in February. The sector readings for the whole of the EU show weakening consumer confidence in the month, a flat construction sector and a small rise in the [...]

EU and EMU Sentiment Rise in February

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/140227e_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140227e.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/140227f_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140227f.png"></a></p>
      
      <p>Initial claims for unemployment insurance bounced up to 348,000 during
      the week ended February 22 from 334,000 in the prior week, initially
      reported as 336,000. This latest level was the highest since late-January.
      Expectations had been for 335,000 claims in the Action Economics Forecast
      Survey. The four-week moving average of initial claims ticked up to 338,250.
      So far this month claims averaged 341,000 versus 333,000 in January.
      During the last ten years there has been a 75% correlation between the
      level of claims and the m/m change in nonfarm payrolls.</p>
      
      <p>Continuing claims for unemployment insurance in the week ended February
      15 ticked higher to 2.964 million (-4.4% y/y). This latest reading nudged
      the four-week moving average up to 2.955 million, still near its highest
      level since early August. The insured rate of unemployment held at 2.3%.
      This particular count covers only &quot;regular&quot; programs and does
      not include all extended benefit and other specialized jobless insurance
      programs. In the week of February 8, the latest available, the total of
      all benefit recipients moved lower to 3.486 million (-39.5% y/y). This
      broader measure is not seasonally adjusted. It compares to a cycle peak of
      12.060 million in January 2010 and pre-recession figures that averaged
      2.596 million in 2007.</p>
      
      <p>By state, the insured rate of unemployment continued to vary greatly
      with Louisiana (1.21%), Florida (1.37%), Tennessee (1.48%), Texas (1.58%),
      North Carolina (1.83%), Indiana (1.98%) and Ohio (2.1%) at the low end of
      the range. At the high end were New York (3.06%), Massachusetts (3.34%),
      California (3.65%), Wisconsin (3.69%), Illinois (3.76%), Connecticut
      (3.81%) and Pennsylvania (3.85%). These data are not seasonally adjusted.</p>
      
      <p>Data on weekly unemployment insurance are contained in Haver's <b>WEEKLY</b>
      database and they are summarized monthly in <b>USECON</b>. Data for
      individual states are in <b>REGIONW</b>. The expectations figure is from
      the Action Economics survey, carried in the <b>AS1REPNA</b> database. </p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/140227g_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140227g.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/140227h_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140227h.png"></a></p>
      
      <table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" 0801 >Unemployment Insurance (000s)</th>
            <th 0801 >02/22/14</th>
            <th 0801 >02/15/14</th>
            <th 0801 >02/08/14</th>
            <th 0801 >Y/Y %</th>
            <th 0801 >2013</th>
            <th 0801 >2012</th>
            <th 0801 >2011</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" 0801 >Initial Claims</td>
            <td 0801  >348</td>
            <td 0801  >334</td>
            <td 0801  >340</td>
            <td 0801  >0.0</td>
            <td 0801  >343</td>
            <td 0801  >374</td>
            <td 0801  >409</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" 0801 >Continuing Claims</td>
            <td 0801  >--</td>
            <td 0801  >2,964</td>
            <td 0801  >2,956</td>
            <td 0801  >-4.4</td>
            <td 0801  >2,980</td>
            <td 0801  >3,319</td>
            <td 0801  >3,742</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" 0801 >Insured Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
            <td 0801  >--</td>
            <td 0801  >2.3</td>
            <td 0801  >2.3</td>
            <td 0801  >2.4<br>
              (2/13)</td>
            <td 0801  >2.3</td>
            <td 0801  >2.6</td>
            <td 0801  >3.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" 0801 >Total &quot;All Programs&quot;
              (NSA)</td>
            <td 0801  >--</td>
            <td 0801  >--</td>
            <td 0801  >3.486 mil.</td>
            <td 0801  >-39.5</td>
            <td 0801  >4.659 mil.</td>
            <td 0801  >6.047 mil.</td>
            <td 0801  >7.750 mil.</td>
  </tr>
              </tbody>
            </table>
            </span>
</body></html>

Initial claims for unemployment insurance bounced up to 348,000 during the week ended February 22 from 334,000 in the prior week, initially reported as 336,000. This latest level was the highest since late-January. Expectations had [...]

U.S. Initial Jobless Insurance Claims Move Higher

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	  <br>
      
      <span id="articletext">
      <p></p>
      
      <p><a href="/comment/140227a_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140227a.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/140227b_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140227b.png"></a></p>

      <p>New orders for durable goods fell 1.0% during January (+4.6 y/y)
      following a 5.3% December drop, revised from a 4.3% decline. The latest
      decline matched expectations in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. A
      5.6% drop (+13.6% y/y) in orders for transportation equipment weighed on
      last month's total. Nondefense aircraft &amp; parts orders fell 20.2%
      (+56.7% y/y) after December's 22.3% shortfall. Motor vehicle &amp; parts
      orders also softened, posting a 2.2% drop last month (+3.8% y/y) on the
      heels of a 6.6% decline.</p>
      
      <p>Outside of the transportation sector, new orders showed mixed
      performance as a 1.1% gain (1.2% y/y) countered December's 1.9% decline.
      Fabricated metal orders led the increase with a 7.3% rise (-9.1 y/y).
      Orders for computers &amp; electronic products followed with a 4.7% rise
      (1.7% y/y). Working to the downside, primary metal orders were off 2.3%
      (+7.0% y/y and electrical equipment, appliances &amp; components orders
      declined 2.1% (+3.7% y/y). Machinery orders slipped 0.4% (+1.5% y/y).
      Nondefense capital goods orders fell 3.9% (+5.6% y/y) reflecting the
      weakened aircraft bookings. Excluding aircraft, however, orders improved
      1.7% (-0.8% y/y) and reversed December's decline.</p>
      
      <p>Shipments of durable goods were off 0.4% (+3.4% y/y) in January
      following December's 1.8% fall. Shipments excluding the transportation
      sector slipped 0.5% (+2.7% y/y), the first material decline in nine months.
      Unfilled orders ticked 0.1% higher (7.1% y/y) while order backlogs outside
      of the transportation sector gained 0.3% (5.7% y/y). Inventories of
      durable goods improved 0.3% (3.7% y/y) after December's 0.9% jump.
      Inventories outside the transportation sector were roughly unchanged (1.4%
      y/y).</p>
      
      <p>The durable goods figures are available in Haver's <b>USECON </b>database.
      The Action Economics consensus forecast figure is in the <b>AS1REPNA</b>
      database.</p>
      
      <p><b>Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress</b> by Fed Chair
      Janet L. Yellen can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20140211a.htm">here.</a></p>
      
      
      <p><a href="/comment/140227c_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140227c.png"></a>
      <a href="/comment/140227d_big.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/140227d.png"></a></p>
      
      <table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Durable Goods NAICS
              Classification</th>
            <th>Jan</th>
            <th>Dec</th>
            <th>Nov</th>
            <th>Y/Y</th>
            <th>2013</th>
            <th>2012</th>
            <th>2011</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >New Orders (SA, %)</td>
            <td  >-1.0</td>
            <td  >-5.3</td>
            <td  >2.7</td>
            <td  >4.6</td>
            <td  >5.1</td>
            <td  >4.1</td>
            <td  >11.0</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Transportation</td>
            <td  >-5.6</td>
            <td  >-12.0</td>
            <td  >8.1</td>
            <td  >13.6</td>
            <td  >7.7</td>
            <td  >8.9</td>
            <td  >14.9</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Total Excluding Transportation</td>
            <td  >1.1</td>
            <td  >-1.9</td>
            <td  >0.2</td>
            <td  >1.2</td>
            <td  >3.9</td>
            <td  >2.1</td>
            <td  >9.5</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Nondefense Capital Goods</td>
            <td  >-3.9</td>
            <td  >-6.5</td>
            <td  >8.2</td>
            <td  >5.6</td>
            <td  >8.6</td>
            <td  >3.7</td>
            <td  >15.3</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Excluding
              Aircraft</td>
            <td  >1.7</td>
            <td  >-1.8</td>
            <td  >3.0</td>
            <td  >-0.8</td>
            <td  >5.1</td>
            <td  >2.1</td>
            <td  >11.6</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Shipments</td>
            <td  >-0.4</td>
            <td  >-1.8</td>
            <td  >1.4</td>
            <td  >3.4</td>
            <td  >3.7</td>
            <td  >6.4</td>
            <td  >9.4</td>
          </tr>
          <tr class="odd">
            <td class="firstcol" >Inventories</td>
            <td  >0.3</td>
            <td  >0.9</td>
            <td  >0.3</td>
            <td  >3.7</td>
            <td  >3.7</td>
            <td  >4.5</td>
            <td  >10.8</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td class="firstcol" >Unfilled Orders</td>
            <td  >0.1</td>
            <td  >0.2</td>
            <td  >0.9</td>
            <td  >7.1</td>
            <td  >6.8</td>
            <td  >3.7</td>
            <td  >10.0</td>
           </tr>
              </tbody>
            </table>
            </span>
</body></html>

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

Largest October layoffs since 2003, led by technology

Subdued global shipping costs not yet pointing to supply chain problems

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

Winnie Tapasanun

260501A9.jpg

260501B9.jpg

The ISM U.S. manufacturing PMI held at a lower-than-expected 52.7 in April and March following a 0.2-point easing to 52.4 in February, data from the Institute for Supply Management showed. The April reading, above the 50 expansion-contraction dividing line, indicated the U.S. manufacturing sector expanded for the fourth successive month. A reading of 53.0 for April had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The April manufacturing PMI, while above a contraction-level 48.8 in April 2025 and a low of 47.0 in October 2024, remained below a peak of 63.8 in March 2021.

The production index slipped to 53.4 in April from 55.1 in March, indicating production expanded for the sixth consecutive month but at the slowest pace since December. The index was above its recent low of 44.8 in April 2025 but below a peak of 66.5 in March 2021. In April, 28.3% (NSA) of respondents reported higher production while 13.0% reported lower production. The new orders index rebounded to 54.1 in April from 53.5 in March, signaling new orders grew for the fourth straight month following four successive months of contraction. The index remained well above a low of 41.8 in January 2023. In April, an increased 31.6% (NSA) of respondents reported higher new orders while 15.2% reported declines. The inventories index increased to 49.0 in April from 47.1 in March, marking the 12th straight month of contraction. The index was below its recent high of 52.7 in March 2025 but above a low of 43.8 in October 2024. Meanwhile, the supplier deliveries index rose to 60.6 in April from 58.9 in March, indicating slower delivery performance for the fifth consecutive month after faster deliveries in November. In April, 22.6% (NSA) of respondents reported slower delivery speeds while only 1.5% reported faster speeds.

On the labor front, the employment index slid to 46.4 in April from 48.7 in March, showing employment contracted for the 31st straight month and at the lowest level since December following a brief expansion in September 2023. The index was above its recent low of 44.1 in November 2025 but below a high of 49.7 in January 2025 and a high of 56.5 in March 2022. In April, 17.5% (NSA) of respondents reported higher employment while 20.2% reported less hiring.

On the pricing front, the prices paid index jumped to 84.6 (NSA) in April from 78.3 in March, indicating raw materials prices rose for the 19th consecutive month and at the fastest pace since April 2022. The index remained well above a low of 39.4 in December 2022 but below a high of 87.1 in March 2022 and a peak of 92.1 in June 2021. In April, an increased 70.3% (NSA) of respondents reported higher prices while only 1.2% reported price declines.

In other ISM series not included in the composite index, the new export orders index fell to 47.9 in April from 49.9 in March, indicating new export orders contracted for the second successive month after expanding in February and January. The index was up from a low of 40.1 in May 2025 but down from its recent high of 52.4 in January 2025 and a high of 57.1 in February 2022. The imports index decreased to 50.3 in April from 52.6 in March, suggesting imports expanded at the weakest pace in three months. The index was below its recent high of 54.9 in February but above a low of 39.9 in May 2025. The order backlog index declined to 51.4 (NSA) in April from 54.4 in March, showing backlog levels grew at the slowest pace in four months. The index was well above a low of 37.5 in May 2023 but far below a peak of 70.6 in May 2021.

The ISM figures are based on responses from over 400 purchasing and supply executives from 18 industries, which are weighted according to each industry’s contribution to GDP. These data are diffusion indexes where a reading above 50 indicates expansion; below 50 indicates contraction. The ISM Manufacturing PMI is a composite index based on the diffusion indexes of five of the indexes (seasonally adjusted) with equal weights: New Orders, Production, Employment, Supplier Deliveries, and Inventories. The figures from the Institute for Supply Management can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database; further detail is found in the **SURVEYS** database. The expectations number is available in Haver’s **AS1REPNA** database.

260501C9.jpg

260501D9.jpg

- ISM Mfg. PMI at 52.7 in Apr. and Mar.; fourth consecutive month of expansion.
- Production (53.4) expands for the sixth straight mth.; new orders (54.1) for the fourth successive mth.
- Employment (46.4) contracts for the 31st straight mth.; at a four-month low.
- Prices Index (84.6) highest since Apr. ’22; prices rising for the 19th consecutive mth.
- Exports (47.9) contract; imports (50.3) still grow but at a three-month low.

U.S. ISM Manufacturing PMI Steady in April; New Orders and Production Growing; Employment Contracting

Andrew Cates

**Front-End Yields Reflect Policy Reassessment**
Against a backdrop of key central bank meetings either having just taken place or imminent, short-dated government bond yields have moved decisively higher across most major economies since the escalation of the Middle East conflict, with the sharpest increase seen in the UK. The rise in 2-year yields reflects a repricing of near-term monetary policy expectations, as markets respond to the inflationary implications of higher energy prices and the growing likelihood that central banks will delay easing cycles. Moves have been most pronounced in economies where inflation is expected to be more persistent—most notably the UK—while increases have been more modest in the US and particularly Japan, where policy normalisation remains gradual. In effect, the front end of the curve is signalling a shift away from the “rate cuts soon” narrative that prevailed earlier in the year toward a more cautious, higher-for-longer policy outlook.

260430Z1.jpg

**US Recession Risks Remain Contained—For Now**
Despite the recent deterioration in the macro backdrop, real-time recession risk indicators for the US remain relatively subdued. This is notable given the combination of softer growth momentum, higher bond yields and heightened geopolitical risk. The nowcast—derived from a blend of high-frequency activity data and financial stress measures—has historically tended to move sharply when conditions turn, rather than drift higher gradually. That asymmetry is important in the current environment. While recession risks are not yet flashing red, past cycles suggest they can reprice abruptly, and arguably at present if energy-driven inflation were to feed much more forcefully into financial conditions or begin to weigh more materially on demand.

260430Z2.jpg

**Consumer Confidence Diverges: Europe and UK Slide, US Stabilises**
Consumer confidence has weakened across the major economies, but the deterioration has been more pronounced in the euro area and the UK than in the US. While sentiment in the US has recently edged up, it remains at relatively subdued levels. By contrast, confidence in Europe and the UK has fallen more sharply, reflecting greater exposure to higher energy costs and a more direct squeeze on real household incomes. This divergence is consistent with broader macro trends, suggesting that demand in Europe may prove more sensitive to the current shock, with weaker sentiment feeding more quickly into consumption.

260430Z3.jpg

**Euro area Credit Conditions Turn More Restrictive**
The latest ECB lending survey points to a clear tightening in credit conditions across the euro area, with banks raising lending standards for both firms and households while loan demand weakens. This combination—more restrictive supply alongside softer demand—is typically associated with a cooling in activity, particularly in interest-sensitive sectors. Recent evidence suggests that higher perceived risks, rising funding costs and geopolitical uncertainty are all weighing on banks’ willingness to lend, while weaker confidence and reduced investment appetite are dampening borrowing needs. The result is a tightening in financial conditions that is likely to amplify the broader slowdown already evident in survey data, reinforcing the more fragile growth dynamics now emerging across the region.

260430Z4.jpg

**An Intensifying AI Boom with Supply-Side Undercurrents**
Against the backdrop of surging AI-related investment, semiconductor prices are not just high—they are rising at an increasingly rapid pace. This chart shows a clear acceleration in both prices and export values, pointing to an intensifying boom in global chip demand. While this is in part a reflection of strong, structural demand, supply-side factors may also be playing a growing role. Although the Middle East is not a direct source of key chip-making minerals, it is central to the energy and petrochemical inputs that underpin semiconductor production. Ongoing geopolitical tensions are therefore likely feeding into higher costs and renewed frictions across supply chains. The combination of accelerating demand and tightening supply conditions suggests that semiconductor inflation could prove more persistent—and more globally consequential—than currently assumed.

260430Z5.jpg

**Labour Markets Reflect the AI Acceleration**
Our final chart this week highlights the extent to which the current AI boom is now feeding through into labour markets. This high-frequency indicator—based on the share of job listings containing AI-related keywords—shows a sharp and sustained increase since the widespread adoption of generative AI tools in late 2022. What began as a more traditional build-out in machine learning roles has evolved into a broader and more intense wave of hiring tied to generative AI capabilities, with demand accelerating markedly across multiple economies. The scale and persistence of this trend point to a structural shift rather than a cyclical upswing, reinforcing the view that AI is becoming an increasingly important driver of investment, productivity expectations and, potentially, broader macroeconomic dynamics.

260430Z6.jpg

Against a backdrop of persistent geopolitical tensions, firmer energy prices and a busy week of central bank meetings—including the Fed, ECB, BoE and BoJ—financial markets have remained notably resilient, even as the macro narrative has softened at the margin. The message from this week’s charts is one of growing tension beneath that surface calm. Front-end bond yields have moved higher, signalling a shift toward a more cautious, “higher-for-longer” policy outlook (chart 1). At the same time, real-time recession indicators for the United States suggest risks remain contained for now (chart 2). Consumer confidence data paint a more uneven picture, with sharper declines in the euro area and UK than in the US, highlighting regional vulnerabilities to the current energy shock (chart 3). The ECB’s latest bank lending survey reinforces this, pointing to tighter credit conditions and weaker demand—factors that are likely to weigh further on European growth (chart 4). By contrast, developments in the semiconductor sector underline a different dynamic: an intensifying global boom, with accelerating price pressures reflecting both strong AI-driven demand and emerging supply-side constraints linked indirectly to energy and logistics disruptions (chart 5). Finally, labour market data confirm that the AI surge is not merely a market narrative but a tangible structural shift, with hiring for AI-related roles accelerating across economies (chart 6). Taken together, these signals point to a more complex macro environment—one in which resilient markets coexist with softening growth, more persistent inflation risks and increasingly delicate policy trade-offs.

<iframe data-testid="embed-iframe" style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/20j2LcPyLFkPvV7NrquXuj?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: Tension Beneath the Surface

Michael J. Moran

260430N.jpg

260430O.jpg

Real GDP grew at an annual rate of 2.0% in the first quarter of 2026, almost identical to the expected advance of 2.1%. The latest change was comfortably within the range of recent observations and close to the economy’s potential rate of growth. The year-over-year change totaled 2.7%, but that shift reflected what might be viewed as a special factor (robust growth in the second and third quarters that offset a trade-tariff-induced drop in 2025-Q1 GDP).

Business fixed investment was the star of the show in the first quarter, registering growth of 10.4%. Outlays for information processing equipment and software were especially strong, while outlays for industrial equipment and Research & Development contributed positively as well. Outlays for structures remained decidedly soft, dropping for the ninth consecutive quarter. Building of data centers have been vigorous, but softness in offices and manufacturing facilities has dwarfed the strength in this new area.

Federal spending surged 9.4% in Q1, but the rise reflected the reopening of most federal agencies after their closure during much of the fourth quarter. Excluding this noise, support from the federal government has been softening. Nondefense outlays peaked in the fourth quarter of 2024, and they were 6.9% shy of that total in the first quarter. Defense spending also peaked in 2024-Q4 and has eased 2.4% since then. Defense spending most likely will grow in coming quarters because of the efforts in the Middle East. Orders for defense goods have already started to rise.

Consumer spending rose 1.5% in the first quarter, a bit shy of the 2.1% pace over the four quarters of last year and less than half the rates in 2023 and 2024. Consumer spending showed signs of softening in late 2025 and January of this year, but activity picked up in February and March. Firm tax refunds might have provided a boost to household spending in the latest months. Some of the tax cuts from the One Big Beautiful Bill were applied retroactively to 2025, but withholding schedules were not adjusted last year. Thus, many households are receiving larger-than-normal tax refunds.

International trade acted as a drag on economic growth in Q1, with net exports subtracting 1.3 percentage points from the GDP increase. Exports did well in the first quarter with growth of 12.9%, but imports were even stronger with a jump of 21.4%. The real trade deficit of $1.1 trillion was noticeably smaller than the shortfall of $1.4 trillion in 2025-Q1 when importers were rushing to get goods into the US before the imposition of tariffs. Still, the trade shortfall was sizeable and its effect on growth noticeable.

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

260430P.jpg

260430Q.jpg

- Robust business investment led the advance; moderate support from consumers.
- Government spending jumped with the reopening of most federal agencies.
- The trade sector remained volatile, making a sizeable negative contribution in Q1.

Q1 GDP: Weathering the Challenges; Trend-Like Growth

Sandy Batten

260430A.jpg

260430B.jpg

This monthly report contains a wealth of information concerning the state of the consumer. The anticipation ahead of today’s report centered on how much the surge in energy prices since the escalation of the US-Iran conflict in early March would push up overall PCE inflation. Prices of energy goods and services jumped 11.6% m/m not annualized in March. This was the largest monthly increase since September 2005. As a result, the headline PCE price index increased 0.7% m/m (3.5% y/y versus 2.8% y/y in February), the largest monthly gain since July 2022 but in line with expectations of the Action Economics Forecast Survey.

The core index (that is, excluding food and energy prices) rose by a more modest 0.3% m/m in March, down from a 0.4% monthly increase in February and in line with expectations. However, the yearly rate rose further to 3.2% y/y in March from 3.0% in February, well above and moving away from the Fed’s 2% target. The FOMC left its fed funds rate target unchanged at yesterday’s meeting, but some committee members dissented, opposing the implied easing bias contained in the statement. Chair Powell, in his press conference, noted that a number of members have become more concerned over the inflation outlook and the possible need for a Fed response.

Nominal personal income posted a solid 0.6% m/m (3.7% y/y) increase in March following an upwardly revised unchanged reading in February (previously -0.1% m/m). The March increase was twice the 0.3% monthly gain expected by the Action Economics Forecast Survey. However, after adjusting for inflation, real personal income slipped 0.1% m/m in March on top of a 0.4% m/m decline in February.

Employee compensation continued to be a major driver of personal income in March. It rose 0.4% m/m (4.1% y/y) in March after a 0.2% monthly increase in February. In March, proprietors’ income jumped 2.8%. This outsized increase reflected payments to farmers from the federal government’s Farmer Bridge Assistance Program. Rental income rose a solid 0.7% m/m, the same gain as in February. Income from financial assets increased 0.4% m/m following a 0.9% m/m decline in February. Personal current transfer payments edged up 0.1% m/m versus a 0.3% m/m decline in February.

Nominal consumption expenditures jumped 0.9% m/m (5.7% y/y) in March following an upwardly revised 0.6% monthly gain in February (previously +0.5% m/m). Spending on goods rose 2.0% m/m (4.5% y/y) while spending on services increased 0.4% m/m (6.3% y/y). As for overall inflation, the surge in energy prices also accounted for a large portion of the March gain in nominal spending. After adjusting for overall inflation, real PCE rose a more modest 0.2% m/m following an upwardly revised 0.3% m/m increase in February (previously +0.1% m/m). Still, the solid gains in February and March provide a strong starting point for Q2. The March level is 1.5% at an annual rate above the Q1 average. For all of Q1, real PCE rose 1.6% q/q saar.

The personal income and consumption figures are available in Haver’s **USECON** database with detail in the **USNA** database. The Action Economics forecasts are in **AS1REPNA**.

260430C.jpg

260430D.jpg

- The PCE price index jumped 0.7%, reflecting an 11.6% m/m surge in energy prices.
- The core index was up 0.3%, in line with expectations but still well above the Fed’s target.
- Personal income increased 0.6% m/m, led by a 0.4% m/m rise in compensation.
- Personal consumption jumped 0.9% m/m with a slight upward revision to February.
- However, much of the March gain in nominal consumption also reflected the jump in energy prices.
- Real consumption rose by a more modest 0.2% m/m.

Surging Energy Prices Push Up PCE Prices and Consumption in March

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

260430A2.jpg

260430B2.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance dropped by 26,000 to 189,000 in the week ending April 25, from 215,000 in the week ending April 18, revised from 214,000. The four-week average declined by 3,500 to 207,500 in the week ending April 25, from 211,000 the April 18 week, revised from 210,750. The Action Economics/Haver Analytics Survey looked for 214,000 claims to have been filed.

The total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries—also known as “continuing claims”—dropped by 23,000 to 1.785 million in the week ending April 18, from 1.808 million in the week ending April 11, revised from 1.821 million. The four-week moving average declined to 1.797 million in the latest week from 1.809 million in the April 11 week. The insured unemployment rate remained at 1.2% in the week of April 11. It has remained at that level since the week of November 29, 2025.

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ending April 11, the highest unemployment rates were in New Jersey (2.51%), Washington (2.25%), Massachusetts (2.21%), Rhode Island (2.10%), and California (2.06%). The lowest rates were in Florida (0.31%), Louisiana (0.32%), Arkansas, North Carolina and Mississippi (all 0.35%), Alabama (0.36%), South Dakota (0.41%) and Tennessee (0.43%). Rates in other notable states include New York (1.96%), Illinois (1.77%), Pennsylvania (1.40%), and Texas (1.04%). 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.

260430C2.jpg

260430D2.jpg

- New claims dropped by 26,000 to 189,000.
- Continuing claims declined by 23,000 to 1.785 million.
- The insured unemployment rate remained at 1.2%.

Economy in Brief: 2014

Jump to:

U.S. Personal Income, Outlays & Savings Firm

U.S. Pending Home Sales Remain Depressed by Winter Storms

U.S. GDP Growth is Revised Lower; Price Inflation Raised

U.S. Durable Goods Order Decline Reflects a Weaker Transportation Sector

Kansas City Fed Survey Depressed by Weather but Expectations Suggest Recovery

EU and EMU Sentiment Rise in February

U.S. Initial Jobless Insurance Claims Move Higher

U.S. Durable Goods Order Decline Reflects a Weaker Transportation Sector