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/060809a.jpg" width="353">
The job openings rate in June as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Job Openings &amp; Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) was about unchanged at 2.9%. The rate for the previous month was revised down to 2.8% from 2.9% . 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 actual number of job openings increased 1.5% to 4.004 million from a downwardly revised 3.945 million in May.
The hires rate fell to 3.5% from 3.7% in May. The hires rate is the number of hires during the month divided by employment. The actual number of hires fell 4.0% (-1.0% y/y) to 4.758 million from May&#39;s 4.949 million.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060809b.jpg" width="353">
The job separations rate fell to 3.4% from 3.6% in May. 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 level of job separations dropped 5.43% (-0.87% y/y) to 4.550 million.
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">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">June &#39;05</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Job Openings Rate: Total</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Hires Rate: Total</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The job openings rate in June as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Job Openings & Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) was about unchanged at 2.9%. The rate for the previous month was revised down to 2.8% from 2.9% . The job [...]

JOLTS: Job Hires and Separations Down

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/060808j.jpg" width="353">
Contrary to expectations, industrial production in Germany fell 0.4% to 108.2 (2000=100) in June from 108.6 in May. While there is reason to believe that high oil prices and the strength of the euro will eventually, slow world demand for German goods and hence, production, the decline in production in June has not been large enough to change the underlying positive trend. The trend in production computed and published by the German Statistical Office is shown in the first chart together with the seasonally and working day adjusted data. The trend value for June is 108.3, compared with 107.9 for May.
In the emerging countries, Hungary, Slovakia and Turkey, industrial production continues to forge ahead. Production in Slovakia was up 0.21% in June from May, in Hungary, 1.78% and in Turkey, 2.20%. In all three countries, industrial production in June averaged 10-12% above June, 2005 in contrast with Germany&#39;s whose year over year growth in production was 4.5%. The contrast between the growth in industrial production in Turkey and in Germany is shown in the second chart and the similarity between the growth in production in Slovakia and Hungary is shown in the third chart.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808f.jpg" width="353">
Indexes only tell us how a particular level of a series varies from a base value. Thus, the 108.2 of industrial production in Germany in June only tells us that production is 8.2% above whatever the average level of production in 2000 was. If we want absolute values that are comparable, we have to look elsewhere. To compare the sizes of these four countries we have chosen to use the GDP expressed in constant prices and constant exchange rates.. For the three emerging countries this value is listed in the National Account Section of each country in terms of 1995 prices and 1995 exchange rate. In the case of Germany, this value is given in the G10 Data Base and is in terms of 2000 prices and exchange rate.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808g.jpg" width="353">
In 2005, the dollar value at constant exchange rates of real GDP in Germany was $1,972 billion; for Turkey, $259 billion; Hungary, $67 billion; and Slovakia, $26 billion. In 2000, the comparable dollar values were $1,904 billion for Germany; Turkey, $210 billion; Hungary, $55 billion; and Slovakia, $20 billion. The percentage changes between 2000 and 2005 were 3.6% for Germany, 23.5% for Turkey, 22.7% for Hungary and 23.2% for Slovakia. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Industrial Production (2000=100)</th>
<th scope="col">Jun&nbsp; 06</th>
<th scope="col">May 06</th>
<th scope="col">Jun 05</th>
<th scope="col">M/M %</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany&nbsp;</td>
<td>108.2</td>
<td>108.6</td>
<td>103.5</td>
<td>-0.37</td>
<td>4.54</td>
<td>103.7</td>
<td>100.8</td>
<td>98.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Trend</td>
<td>108.3</td>
<td>107.9</td>
<td>102.3</td>
<td>0.37</td>
<td>4.84</td>
<td>103.6</td>
<td>100.9</td>
<td>98.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Slovakia</td>
<td>142.6</td>
<td>142.3</td>
<td>127.4</td>
<td>0.21</td>
<td>11.93</td>
<td>129.1</td>
<td>124.6</td>
<td>119.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Hungary</td>
<td>143.1</td>
<td>140.6</td>
<td>129.5</td>
<td>1.78</td>
<td>10.50</td>
<td>129.9</td>
<td>120.9</td>
<td>113.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Turkey *</td>
<td>139.1</td>
<td>136.1</td>
<td>125.0</td>
<td>2.20</td>
<td>11.29</td>
<td>125.7</td>
<td>119.3</td>
<td>108.7</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Contrary to expectations, industrial production in Germany fell 0.4% to 108.2 (2000=100) in June from 108.6 in May. While there is reason to believe that high oil prices and the strength of the euro will eventually, slow world demand [...]

Industrial Production Falters in Germany: Forges Ahead in Turkey, Hungary and Slovakia

<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/060808i.jpg" width="353">
The Federal Open Market Committee held steady the target interest rate for Federal funds at 5.25% at today&#39;s meeting. Voting against the decision, after seventeen 25 basis point increases since June 2004, was Jeffrey M. Lacker who preferred an increase of 25 basis points in the federal funds rate target.
The discount rate also held steady at 6.25%.
Today&#39;s decision was widely expected by analysts.
The Fed&#39;s rationale for leaving rates unchanged was that &quot;Economic growth has moderated from its quite strong pace earlier this year, partly reflecting a gradual cooling of the housing market and the lagged effects of increases in interest rates and energy prices.&quot;<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808h.jpg" width="353">
Moreover, &quot;... inflation pressures seem likely to moderate over time, reflecting contained inflation expectations and the cumulative effects of monetary policy actions and other factors restraining aggregate demand.&quot;
For the complete text of the Fed&#39;s latest press release please follow this <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/monetary/2006/20060808/default.htm">link</a>.
The accompanying chart plots the U.S. economy&#39;s actual rate of growth versus its so called &quot;potential&quot;, i.e., growth in the labor force plus the growth in labor&#39;s productivity. The figures are updated for this morning&#39;s downward revisions to recent productivity and indicate that GDP growth of 3.5% trailed its potential of 4.0%.
The Taylor Rule: A Guidepost for Monetary Policy? from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland can be found <a href="http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/Com2003/0703.pdf">here</a>.
Monetary Policy in a Global Environment from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is available <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2006/el2006-12-13.html">here</a>.

</body>
</html>

The Federal Open Market Committee held steady the target interest rate for Federal funds at 5.25% at today's meeting. Voting against the decision, after seventeen 25 basis point increases since June 2004, was Jeffrey M. Lacker who [...]

Federal Funds Rate Steady at 5.25%

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>

 



<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808e.jpg" width="353">
Weekly chain store sales slipped 0.2% last week after two weeks of moderate increase, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey.
Sales in early August started the month 0.4% above the July average which fell 0.6% from June.
During the last ten years there has been a 47% correlation between the y/y change in chain store sales and the change in nonauto retail sales less gasoline.
The ICSC-UBS retail chain-store sales index is constructed using the same-store sales (stores open for one year) reported by 78 stores of seven retailers: Dayton Hudson, Federated, Kmart, May, J.C. Penney, Sears and Wal-Mart.
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC-UBS fell another 0.4% (-2.2% y/y) in the latest week. It was the third decline in the last four weeks.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808d.jpg" width="353">
Retail gasoline prices opened the month with a three cent rise to $3.04 (28.3% y/y) for regular unleaded gas compared to a July average of $2.98. In spot market trading yesterday, gasoline prices fell moderately but the shutdown of supplies from Prudhoe Bay lifted Alaskan North Slope prices $2.22 to $75.68 per barrel (22.4% y/y).
The new Short-Term Energy Outlook from the U.S. Energy Information Administration is available <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">08/05/06</th>
<th scope="col">07/29/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>470.2</td>
<td>471.2</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Weekly chain store sales slipped 0.2% last week after two weeks of moderate increase, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey. Sales in early August started the month 0.4% above the July average [...]

Weekly Chain Store Sales Slipped As Gasoline Prices Rose

<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/060808c.jpg" width="353">
Small business optimism last month recovered most of the June decline with a 1.4% rise, according to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). Nevertheless, the average level of the NFIB index this year remained 2.5% below the 2005 average.
During the last ten years there has been a 70% correlation between the level of the NFIB index and the two quarter change in real GDP.
Respondents expecting the economy to improve rose modestly m/m but remained near the lowest level since early 2001.
The percentage of firms planning to increase employment improved markedly m/m but the number of firms currently with one or more job openings slipped. During the last ten years there has been a 72% correlation between the NFIB percentage and the y/y change in nonfarm payrolls.
The percent planning to raise capital expenditures rose to 31%, about the same as last year..The percentage of firms planning to raise average selling prices rose back to 30% and the percentage of firms actually raising prices was stable m/m at 23%. During the last ten years there has been a 60% correlation between the change in the producer price index and the level of the NFIB price index.
About 24 million businesses exist in the United States. Small business creates 80% of all new jobs in America.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S7/@S7.HTM">Nat&#39;l Federation of Independent Business</a></th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Small Business Optimism Index (1986=100)</td>
<td>98.1</td>
<td>96.7</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>101.6</td>
<td>104.6</td>
<td>101.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Small business optimism last month recovered most of the June decline with a 1.4% rise, according to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). Nevertheless, the average level of the NFIB index this year remained 2.5% [...]

Small Business Optimism Recovered

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808a.jpg" width="353">
Non-farm labor productivity growth last quarter slowed to 1.1% from the heady, upwardly revised 4.3% growth rate during 1Q. The gain was slightly ahead of Consensus expectations for 0.8% growth.
Revisions extended back to 2003. Due to less output growth, as highlighted by the downward revision to GDP reported in July, productivity also was lowered to 2.3% in 2005 from 2.7% estimated initially, to 3.0% in 2004 from 3.4% and to 3.7% in 2003 from 3.9%.
Upward pressure on unit labor costs intensified due to slower productivity growth and faster growth in compensation per hour. Unit labor costs grew 4.2% last quarter, up from a 2.5% increase during 1Q. The 3.3% average rate of advance so far this year rose from 2.0% growth last year. Revisions actually lowered slightly the annual growth in costs from 2004 to 2005.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808b.jpg" width="353">
Compensation jumped 5.4% after a 6.4% 1Q gain and the 6.1% two-quarter average rate of increase is the fastest in three years. Part of the acceleration is due to downward revisions to compensation growth during 2005 and 2004.
Factory sector productivity grew 3.0% (3.8% y/y) after a 3.7% 1Q increase. Revisions to factory sector productivity also were downward. Compensation growth also was strong last quarter after downward revision to prior years&#39; growth. Factory sector compensation per hour rose 1.7% (3.6% y/y) after a 5.2% 1Q increase that was more than double last month&#39;s estimate.
Unit labor costs in the factory sector nevertheless remained under control. Costs fell 1.2% (-0.2% y/y) after a 1.4% 1Q rise. The stability of recent labor cost pressures compares with a 0.5% gain during 2005 revised from 1.7%, and a 0.1% gain during 2004 revised from -3.1%.
Colleges Need To Learn about Productivity a speech by Fed Bank President William Poole is available <a href="http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2006/a/pages/pres_message.html"> 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/@EC/@EC02/@EC02.HTM">Non-farm Business Sector</a> (SAAR)</th>
<th scope="col">2Q&#39; 06</th>
<th scope="col">1Q &#39;06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Output per Hour</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Compensation per Hour</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>6.4%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unit Labor Costs</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Non-farm labor productivity growth last quarter slowed to 1.1% from the heady, upwardly revised 4.3% growth rate during 1Q. The gain was slightly ahead of Consensus expectations for 0.8% growth. Revisions extended back to 2003. Due to [...]

2Q U.S. Productivity Up 1.1%, Costs Accelerated

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808a.jpg" width="353">
Non-farm labor productivity growth last quarter slowed to 1.1% from the heady, upwardly revised 4.3% growth rate during 1Q. The gain was slightly ahead of Consensus expectations for 0.8% growth.
Revisions extended back to 2003. Due to less output growth, as highlighted by the downward revision to GDP reported in July, productivity also was lowered to 2.3% in 2005 from 2.7% estimated initially, to 3.0% in 2004 from 3.4% and to 3.7% in 2003 from 3.9%.
Upward pressure on unit labor costs intensified due to slower productivity growth and faster growth in compensation per hour. Unit labor costs grew 4.2% last quarter, up from a 2.5% increase during 1Q. The 3.3% average rate of advance so far this year rose from 2.0% growth last year. Revisions actually lowered slightly the annual growth in costs from 2004 to 2005.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808b.jpg" width="353">
Compensation jumped 5.4% after a 6.4% 1Q gain and the 6.1% two-quarter average rate of increase is the fastest in three years. Part of the acceleration is due to downward revisions to compensation growth during 2005 and 2004.
Factory sector productivity grew 3.0% (3.8% y/y) after a 3.7% 1Q increase. Revisions to factory sector productivity also were downward. Compensation growth also was strong last quarter after downward revision to prior years&#39; growth. Factory sector compensation per hour rose 1.7% (3.6% y/y) after a 5.2% 1Q increase that was more than double last month&#39;s estimate.
Unit labor costs in the factory sector nevertheless remained under control. Costs fell 1.2% (-0.2% y/y) after a 1.4% 1Q rise. The stability of recent labor cost pressures compares with a 0.5% gain during 2005 revised from 1.7%, and a 0.1% gain during 2004 revised from -3.1%.
Colleges Need To Learn about Productivity a speech by Fed Bank President William Poole is available <a href="http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2006/a/pages/pres_message.html"> 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/@EC/@EC02/@EC02.HTM">Non-farm Business Sector</a> (SAAR)</th>
<th scope="col">2Q&#39; 06</th>
<th scope="col">1Q &#39;06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Output per Hour</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Compensation per Hour</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>6.4%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Unit Labor Costs</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Small Business Optimism Recovered 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> August 8, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808c.jpg" width="353">
Small business optimism last month recovered most of the June decline with a 1.4% rise, according to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). Nevertheless, the average level of the NFIB index this year remained 2.5% below the 2005 average.
During the last ten years there has been a 70% correlation between the level of the NFIB index and the two quarter change in real GDP.
Respondents expecting the economy to improve rose modestly m/m but remained near the lowest level since early 2001.
The percentage of firms planning to increase employment improved markedly m/m but the number of firms currently with one or more job openings slipped. During the last ten years there has been a 72% correlation between the NFIB percentage and the y/y change in nonfarm payrolls.
The percent planning to raise capital expenditures rose to 31%, about the same as last year..The percentage of firms planning to raise average selling prices rose back to 30% and the percentage of firms actually raising prices was stable m/m at 23%. During the last ten years there has been a 60% correlation between the change in the producer price index and the level of the NFIB price index.
About 24 million businesses exist in the United States. Small business creates 80% of all new jobs in America.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/SURVEYS/@S7/@S7.HTM">Nat&#39;l Federation of Independent Business</a></th>
<th scope="col">July</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Small Business Optimism Index (1986=100)</td>
<td>98.1</td>
<td>96.7</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>101.6</td>
<td>104.6</td>
<td>101.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Weekly Chain Store Sales Slipped As Gasoline Prices Rose 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> August 8, 2006


<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808e.jpg" width="353">
Weekly chain store sales slipped 0.2% last week after two weeks of moderate increase, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC)-UBS survey.
Sales in early August started the month 0.4% above the July average which fell 0.6% from June.
During the last ten years there has been a 47% correlation between the y/y change in chain store sales and the change in nonauto retail sales less gasoline.
The ICSC-UBS retail chain-store sales index is constructed using the same-store sales (stores open for one year) reported by 78 stores of seven retailers: Dayton Hudson, Federated, Kmart, May, J.C. Penney, Sears and Wal-Mart.
The leading indicator of chain store sales from ICSC-UBS fell another 0.4% (-2.2% y/y) in the latest week. It was the third decline in the last four weeks.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808d.jpg" width="353">
Retail gasoline prices opened the month with a three cent rise to $3.04 (28.3% y/y) for regular unleaded gas compared to a July average of $2.98. In spot market trading yesterday, gasoline prices fell moderately but the shutdown of supplies from Prudhoe Bay lifted Alaskan North Slope prices $2.22 to $75.68 per barrel (22.4% y/y).
The new Short-Term Energy Outlook from the U.S. Energy Information Administration is available <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html"> here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/surveyw/@S2/@S2.HTM">ICSC-UBS (SA, 1977=100)</a></th>
<th scope="col">08/05/06</th>
<th scope="col">07/29/06</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Weekly Chain Store Sales</td>
<td>470.2</td>
<td>471.2</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
  Industrial Production Falters in Germany: Forges Ahead in Turkey, Hungary and Slovakia  
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise Curley</a> August 8, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808j.jpg" width="353">
Contrary to expectations, industrial production in Germany fell 0.4% to 108.2 (2000=100) in June from 108.6 in May. While there is reason to believe that high oil prices and the strength of the euro will eventually, slow world demand for German goods and hence, production, the decline in production in June has not been large enough to change the underlying positive trend. The trend in production computed and published by the German Statistical Office is shown in the first chart together with the seasonally and working day adjusted data. The trend value for June is 108.3, compared with 107.9 for May.
In the emerging countries, Hungary, Slovakia and Turkey, industrial production continues to forge ahead. Production in Slovakia was up 0.21% in June from May, in Hungary, 1.78% and in Turkey, 2.20%. In all three countries, industrial production in June averaged 10-12% above June, 2005 in contrast with Germany&#39;s whose year over year growth in production was 4.5%. The contrast between the growth in industrial production in Turkey and in Germany is shown in the second chart and the similarity between the growth in production in Slovakia and Hungary is shown in the third chart.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808f.jpg" width="353">
Indexes only tell us how a particular level of a series varies from a base value. Thus, the 108.2 of industrial production in Germany in June only tells us that production is 8.2% above whatever the average level of production in 2000 was. If we want absolute values that are comparable, we have to look elsewhere. To compare the sizes of these four countries we have chosen to use the GDP expressed in constant prices and constant exchange rates.. For the three emerging countries this value is listed in the National Account Section of each country in terms of 1995 prices and 1995 exchange rate. In the case of Germany, this value is given in the G10 Data Base and is in terms of 2000 prices and exchange rate.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808g.jpg" width="353">
In 2005, the dollar value at constant exchange rates of real GDP in Germany was $1,972 billion; for Turkey, $259 billion; Hungary, $67 billion; and Slovakia, $26 billion. In 2000, the comparable dollar values were $1,904 billion for Germany; Turkey, $210 billion; Hungary, $55 billion; and Slovakia, $20 billion. The percentage changes between 2000 and 2005 were 3.6% for Germany, 23.5% for Turkey, 22.7% for Hungary and 23.2% for Slovakia. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Industrial Production (2000=100)</th>
<th scope="col">Jun&nbsp; 06</th>
<th scope="col">May 06</th>
<th scope="col">Jun 05</th>
<th scope="col">M/M %</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y %</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany&nbsp;</td>
<td>108.2</td>
<td>108.6</td>
<td>103.5</td>
<td>-0.37</td>
<td>4.54</td>
<td>103.7</td>
<td>100.8</td>
<td>98.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Trend</td>
<td>108.3</td>
<td>107.9</td>
<td>102.3</td>
<td>0.37</td>
<td>4.84</td>
<td>103.6</td>
<td>100.9</td>
<td>98.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Slovakia</td>
<td>142.6</td>
<td>142.3</td>
<td>127.4</td>
<td>0.21</td>
<td>11.93</td>
<td>129.1</td>
<td>124.6</td>
<td>119.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Hungary</td>
<td>143.1</td>
<td>140.6</td>
<td>129.5</td>
<td>1.78</td>
<td>10.50</td>
<td>129.9</td>
<td>120.9</td>
<td>113.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Turkey *</td>
<td>139.1</td>
<td>136.1</td>
<td>125.0</td>
<td>2.20</td>
<td>11.29</td>
<td>125.7</td>
<td>119.3</td>
<td>108.7</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Federal Funds Rate Steady at 5.25% 
by <a href="/comment/Moeller.html">Tom Moeller</a> August 8, 2006


<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808i.jpg" width="353">
The Federal Open Market Committee held steady the target interest rate for Federal funds at 5.25% at today&#39;s meeting. Voting against the decision, after seventeen 25 basis point increases since June 2004, was Jeffrey M. Lacker who preferred an increase of 25 basis points in the federal funds rate target.
The discount rate also held steady at 6.25%.
Today&#39;s decision was widely expected by analysts.
The Fed&#39;s rationale for leaving rates unchanged was that &quot;Economic growth has moderated from its quite strong pace earlier this year, partly reflecting a gradual cooling of the housing market and the lagged effects of increases in interest rates and energy prices.&quot;<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060808h.jpg" width="353">
Moreover, &quot;... inflation pressures seem likely to moderate over time, reflecting contained inflation expectations and the cumulative effects of monetary policy actions and other factors restraining aggregate demand.&quot;
For the complete text of the Fed&#39;s latest press release please follow this <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/monetary/2006/20060808/default.htm">link</a>.
The accompanying chart plots the U.S. economy&#39;s actual rate of growth versus its so called &quot;potential&quot;, i.e., growth in the labor force plus the growth in labor&#39;s productivity. The figures are updated for this morning&#39;s downward revisions to recent productivity and indicate that GDP growth of 3.5% trailed its potential of 4.0%.
The Taylor Rule: A Guidepost for Monetary Policy? from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland can be found <a href="http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/Com2003/0703.pdf">here</a>.
Monetary Policy in a Global Environment from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is available <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2006/el2006-12-13.html">here</a>.



</html>

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060807c.jpg" width="353">
The Japanese indexes of business conditions--the Diffusion Indexes and the Composite Indexes--are designed to facilitate the analysis of business cycles. The diffusion indexes aggregate the direction of changes of selected series to detect a business cycle phase, while the composite indexes aggregate the percentage changes of selected series to detect the volume of output as an indication of the strength or weakness of the cycle.
Both the Diffusion and the Composite indexes are classified as Leading, Coincident and Lagging. The leading indicators are generally used as predictors. They usually precede the coincident indicators by a few months. The lagging indicators are used to confirm turning points.
As reported, the diffusion indexes are extremely volatile. For instance, the latest report for the leading diffusion index is 50% for June, down from 77.3% in May. If we take, instead, a three month moving average, the June figures is 60.6% or the same as May. (See the first chart which shows the monthly values of the leading diffusion index and the three months moving averages.) A value of a diffusion index above 50% indicates expansion while a value below indicates a contraction. The President of the ESRI (Economic and Social Research Institute) has determined that the current cycle is dated from the trough of the last cycle--January, 2002. Thus the current expansion has been in progress for 43 months. With the leading indicator steady and the coincident and lagging diffusion indexes still showing strength, the expansion is likely to continue, for a few months, at least. The longest expansion on record is that from October, 1965 to July, 1970 a total of 57 months.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/060807d.jpg" width="353">
The composite leading indicator also declined in June from 108.2 (2000=100) in May to 106.2. but the three month moving average for June was 107.3, compared with 106.5 in May. The coincident composite index is also an indicator of the phase of the cycle. If it is rising (falling), the economic cycle is considered to be in the expansion (contraction) phase. In addition, the quarterly average of the composite coincident index is a good indicator of real gross domestic product as shown in the second chart. (The correlation between the two is .85.) Thus rise in the composite coincident index suggests a continued rise in real GDP for the second quarter. The first estimate of the second quarter GDP is expected on August 11.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Japan</th>
<th scope="col">Jun&nbsp; 06</th>
<th scope="col">May 06</th>
<th scope="col">Jun 05</th>
<th scope="col">M/M</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
<th scope="col">2003</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Diffusion Indexes&nbsp;(%)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Leading Indicators&nbsp;</td>
<td>50.0</td>
<td>77.3</td>
<td>58.3</td>
<td>-27.3</td>
<td>-8.3*</td>
<td>55.2</td>
<td>59.4</td>
<td>59.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Coincident Indicators</td>
<td>88.9</td>
<td>80.0</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>8.9</td>
<td>-11.1*</td>
<td>71.6</td>
<td>61.4</td>
<td>74.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Lagging Indicators</td>
<td>75.0</td>
<td>80.0</td>
<td>83.3</td>
<td>-5.0</td>
<td>-8.2*</td>
<td>72.2</td>
<td>77.8</td>
<td>68.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Composite Indicators (2000=100)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Leading Indicators&nbsp;</td>
<td>106.2</td>
<td>108.2</td>
<td>102.5</td>
<td>-1.94</td>
<td>3.71</td>
<td>102.8</td>
<td>103.1</td>
<td>96.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Coincident Indicators</td>
<td>111.2</td>
<td>110.3</td>
<td>107.6</td>
<td>0.82</td>
<td>3.35</td>
<td>107.7</td>
<td>105.2</td>
<td>98.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Lagging Indicators</td>
<td>124.0</td>
<td>125.3</td>
<td>120.7</td>
<td>-1.04</td>
<td>2.73</td>
<td>119.8.</td>
<td>114.2</td>
<td>103.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Japanese indexes of business conditions--the Diffusion Indexes and the Composite Indexes--are designed to facilitate the analysis of business cycles. The diffusion indexes aggregate the direction of changes of selected series to [...]

Japan's Business Cycle Indicators

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: August 2006

Jump to:

JOLTS: Job Hires and Separations Down

Industrial Production Falters in Germany: Forges Ahead in Turkey, Hungary and Slovakia

Federal Funds Rate Steady at 5.25%

Weekly Chain Store Sales Slipped As Gasoline Prices Rose

Small Business Optimism Recovered

2Q U.S. Productivity Up 1.1%, Costs Accelerated

2Q U.S. Productivity Up 1.1%, Costs Accelerated

Japan's Business Cycle Indicators