Introducing

Robert Brusca

Robert A. Brusca is Chief Economist of Fact and Opinion Economics, a consulting firm he founded in Manhattan. He has been an economist on Wall Street for over 25 years. He has visited central banking and large institutional clients in over 30 countries in his career as an economist. Mr. Brusca was a Divisional Research Chief at the Federal Reserve Bank of NY (Chief of the International Financial markets Division), a Fed Watcher at Irving Trust and Chief Economist at Nikko Securities International. He is widely quoted and appears in various media. Mr. Brusca holds an MA and Ph.D. in economics from Michigan State University and a BA in Economics from the University of Michigan. His research pursues his strong interests in non aligned policy economics as well as international economics. FAO Economics’ research targets investors to assist them in making better investment decisions in stocks, bonds and in a variety of international assets. The company does not manage money and has no conflicts in giving economic advice.

Publications by Robert Brusca

Europe| Jul 31 2026
EMU HICP Flares After Sag
The harmonized index of consumer prices (HICP) for the European Monetary Union (EMU) surged in July, rising by 0.5% after having sagged in June with a -0.1% month-to-month change. The ceasefire that had temporarily been arranged with Iran in June has given way to the reality of ongoing war and ongoing strikes against tanker traffic. While there are some ongoing talks among the combatants, there is not a lot of hope for another ceasefire that's going to last. Both the United States and Iran have their own particular needs to have a ceasefire. But Iran took the last ceasefire as an opportunity to rebuild, recalibrate, apparently strengthen its military capabilities, and then extend its demands for control of the Strait of Hormuz. These were all nonstarters from the U.S. perspective, and I presume from a global perspective as well. The conditions necessary to underpin a ceasefire with some staying power simply do not exist anymore. The U.S. has resorted to hitting Iran harder.

As a result, energy prices have moved back up and inflation in July moved back up in the EMU. Inflation shows a 2.9% rise over 12 months, a 4.1% annual rate of increase over six months, and a 2.6% annual rate of increase over three months. All of these are excessive with respect to the ECB objectives.

Over six months inflation is excessive in the EMU and in its four largest economies: Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. The best (the lowest) inflation performance is in Germany at 3%, while the worst inflation performance is in Italy at 5.2%. These four countries all exceed the ECB’s desired pace of 2% over 12 months as well. Twelve-month Spanish inflation runs at 3.8%, while in France inflation nails down the low side at 2.3%. Over three months, conditions are more varied because we're mixing in this one-month period of very good inflation news with two months of not so good inflation news. Over three months, Spain still logs a 4.4% increase in its HICP at an annual rate, but France logs 1.2% and Italy logs 1.6%; Germany's pace comes in at 2.8%.

We have core inflation or inflation excluding energy metrics (ex-energy in the case of Germany) for three of the four large countries. These metrics for July ranged from a 0.2% increase month-to-month in Germany to a 0.4% increase in core inflation in Italy. The ex-energy or core measures are within reach of the ECB’s target when applied to the core on a country basis. For Germany, the pace is 2.2% over 12 months, on the low side; for Italy, it’s at 1.6%. But excessive inflation persists for Spain where the core measure is at 3%. Over six months, results are highly similar to what we see over 12 months, but over three months we see German inflation at 2.3%, Italy at 2.4%, and Spain at 3.1%. All of these core or ex-energy measures become uncomfortable over three months.
by:Robert Brusca
|in:Economy in Brief
Europe| Jul 30 2026
European GDP Improves in Q2
GDP in the second quarter accelerated for most of the countries in the monetary union. The overall figure for the EMU improved to 1.8% as an annualized quarter-over-quarter gain from 0% in the first quarter and 0.8% in the fourth quarter. Among the 8 early reporters of GDP, there was a deceleration in Italy, Germany, and Belgium, while the other five countries showed an increase in their growth rates in the second quarter compared to the first quarter.

The four largest monetary union economies showed a technical weakening, but at the one-digit level, growth was 1.1% in the second quarter, the same as in the first quarter. The rest of the monetary union saw an increase in growth from -2.9% annualized in the first quarter to a gain of 3.7% at an annualized rate in the second quarter, a huge shift.

On a year-over-year basis, growth rates improved for all but three countries: Belgium, France, and Spain. For Spain, the year-over-year growth rate was unchanged at 2.7% in the second quarter. For France, the growth decelerated from 0.8% in the first quarter to 0.7% in the second quarter; for Belgium, the growth rate slowed from 0.8% to 0.5%.

The overall monetary union growth rate rose to 1% in the second quarter compared to a 0.5% increase in the first quarter. The four largest economies showed stronger growth at 1.1% year-over-year compared to 1% last quarter, while the rest of the monetary union showed a GDP gain of 0.5% compared to a year-over-year decline of 0.9% in the first quarter.

Evaluating growth over a longer timeline, three early-reporting monetary union members have standings in their growth rates above their respective 50th percentiles. Those countries are Portugal at 69.6%, Italy at 60.9%, and Spain at 51.1%.

The four largest monetary union economies, pooled together, have a growth ranking year-over-year in their 43.5 percentile. The rest of the monetary union has a growth ranking at the 25th percentile. From this, we can conclude that most of the growth has come from the four large economies, even though in the current quarter it's the smaller economies that seem to be performing much better.

On these same timelines, the United States posted a weaker quarterly growth rate in the second quarter at 1.5%, compared to 2.1% in the first quarter. U.S. growth at 2.1% year-over-year is slower than its 2.7% year-over-year growth rate in the first quarter; it has a queue-percentile standing of its growth rate on data back to 2001 in its 37.5 percentile, a standing well below its historic median for the period. U.S. consumer spending held up pretty well in Q2 and business investment spending remained strong, but the trade account did a turnaround and sucked a lot of life out of the growth rate in the second quarter, keeping the U.S. economy as an important driver of global growth.
by:Robert Brusca
|in:Economy in Brief
France| Jul 28 2026
French Household Confidence Improves
Household confidence in France improved in July, rising to 86.4 from 84.3 in June. Confidence was last higher in March, and the average for confidence over the last 12 months is 87.7. The July value, despite its climb, is still below that average; confidence is still weak in a historic context. According to data back to 2001, the current confidence metric in July has a 16.2 percentile ranking, an extremely weak reading. The mean of confidence readings back to 2001 is 95.1. The July reading is nearly nine points below that.

Weak but improved living standards readings: Living standards in July improved slightly compared to June. The assessment of the last 12 months is -79 compared to -81 previously. However, the 12-month average is a rating of -74; the July reading is still short of that. Looking to the next 12 months, living standards are expected to improve; the reading of -59 in July compares to -65 logged a month ago. It compares to a 12-month average of -61. The expectation for living standards over the next 12 months is higher than it has been on average for the last 12 months, although the reading itself is still quite weak. The standing in its 10th percentile for a current rating at -59 is below its full-period average of -38.

Fewer unemployment worries: Unemployment over the next 12 months is expected to be less of a concern, but the reading in July drops to 55 from 61 in June; however, the July reading is still above the 12-month average of 52. The ranking for unemployment concerns has a 72nd percentile standing, putting it in the top third of its historic range of readings.

Inflation fears drop, comparatively: Price developments show that over the past 12 months inflation has been a concern, with the July reading falling relative to June to 17 from 22, but this reading is much higher than its 12-month average of +2. However, looking to the next 12 months, the July reading is -33 compared to -15 in June, and it compares to -20 on average over the last 12 months. Inflation expectations are for conditions to show weaker inflation pressures. The ranking of the July reading is at its 44th percentile, below its historic median; the medians on rankings occur at a ranking of 50. Of course, all these readings will be dependent on how oil prices evolve.

Saving/spending: Both the favorability and the ability to save improved in July compared to June; both readings in July are above their respective 12-month averages. The rankings of these observations are around their high 90th percentiles; for the favorability to save, the reading is the highest in the whole period back to June 2001. The ability to save is often not a good reading but rather one that reflects consumer defensiveness, and we see that as we move to the next metric, the favorability to make a major purchase. In July, that reading improved to -36 from -38 in June, but it's weaker than its 12-month average of -31.8. In historic context, it's extremely weak and has an 8.3 percentile standing. So, the favorability to make a major purchase is in the lower 10th percentile of all monthly observations back to June 2001, indicating considerable consumer defensiveness.

Financial situation: The financial situations over the past 12 months and projected over the next 12 months show slightly improved readings compared to June. The past 12 months reading is weaker than its 12-month average, while the expectation for the next 12 months is the same as its 12-month average. The rankings of the two financial situations are just below their respective 40th percentiles, placing them about 10 percentile points below their historic medians.

Summing up The consumer in France sees some improvement in July, and conditions remain mixed across these various components. But most of the rankings for the components are quite weak, with the exception being concerns about unemployment and the favorability to save, which was a defensive reading. The weighting scheme for this survey gives us a slightly more positive read on the month, but it's clear that the French consumers are still concerned about economic conditions and the future.
by:Robert Brusca
|in:Economy in Brief
Global| Jul 27 2026
An Update on Withering Money Growth Metrics
Money works with a lag but sometimes it’s reported with a lag too: U.S. and U.K. money supply data lag the results for the monetary union and for Japan by one month. Monetary trends currently based on the most up-to-date data, which are either May or June depending on the country we're looking at, show that three-month money supply growth, and credit growth in the case of the monetary union, have slowed compared to six months, except in the case of Japan. In Japan, for the six-month and three-month growth rates are identical at 1.9% overall; growth rates are lower over three months and six months compared to 12 months.

Real money balances: The growth rate of real money balances shows the step-down in growth in the monetary union from 1.6% over 12 months to a 1% annual rate over six months to a 0.6% annual rate over three months. Over the same sequence of dates, private credit in the monetary union has gone from 1.2% over 12 months to a pace of 1.4% over six months, and then down to 1.1% over three months. In the U.S., money growth over this period has decelerated from 2.5% over 12 months to 2% at an annual rate over six months to -0.4% over three months annualized. The U.K. shows a slightly different pattern for real money balances that grow 2.4% over 12 months, accelerate to 3.4% annually over six months, but then back down to a 1.6% annual rate over three months, showing a net deceleration from 12 months to three months but with an intervening bulge. In Japan, the money growth slowdown is monotonic, from 0.5% over 12 months to a 0.3% pace over six months to a -1.2% pace over three months.

Pattern reversal: Nominal money growth, which had shown some acceleration early in the year, is now beginning to show deceleration, and this is before central banks have generally begun to raise rates, although there have been ongoing rate increases of a slight amount in Japan and also the start of a tightening cycle in the European Monetary Union. In the U.S., there's a new head of the central bank and policies there are expected to shift, but the jury is out on what to expect, as is often the case with a new chairman. There are a variety of views on what he plans to do; he will most likely make his reputation by what he in fact does rather than by what he says about what he intends to do. On balance, growths in the U.S., the monetary union, and Japan are all showing deceleration with a slight exception from the U.K. But generally speaking, money supply no longer is showing a moderate disturbing acceleration pattern; in real terms, money growth has lost a great deal of steam, particularly in the U.S. and Japan, where three-month growth rates of real money balances are declining and show negative rates of growth.

Summing up These are new trends, and they are not much talked about in markets because markets don't speak the language of money supply growth much anymore. However, it's a good idea to continue to look at money supply and what it does. Just because central banks aren't targeting money doesn't mean that it isn't relevant anymore; it just means that central banks have put their attention someplace else. At present, central bankers seem to be arguing about where their attention should be. It could be a good time for us to keep close tabs on what money supply is doing.
by:Robert Brusca
|in:Economy in Brief
Japan| Jul 24 2026
Japan’s CPI Is Misbehaving as BOJ Faces a Stern Test
The Bank of Japan is in a bit of a policy pickle. Inflation has picked up. After a long period of super-low inflation and interest rates, the policy rate itself has only been lifted to 1%. The BOJ faces a world with key geopolitical strains, higher inflation, supply chain disruptions, and rising oil prices with gains in other commodity prices as well. The war in Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, after a brief respite in June, is back in force. The future is again clouded and has led to negativism.

The yen has been weakening; that has put the BOJ in another difficult spot. So far, it has been unwilling to use interest rates to defend it. And we know that intervention is only a fleeting tool and not any sort of lasting solution.

But with all this on its plate, the BOJ has to deal now with some unexpected fiscal stimulus. The Takaichi government, like every Japanese government, has a special relationship with the central bank having two representatives at BOJ meetings, one from the MOF and another from the Cabinet Office. These representatives do not vote but can request that policy moves be delayed. Still, the BOJ has become more independent since 1998 when governing laws were changed. BOJ is directed to cooperate with government and to act independently. Earlier this year, when inflation flared on rising oil prices, the Takaichi government took steps to mute the impact on Japan’s inflation. So its inflation data have been dressed up a bit by inflation-suppressing government programs, which also make it seem less pressing that the BOJ act.

Still, inflation is heating up. The core inflation rate, which excludes fresh foods & energy, is now at 1.7% year-on-year, while the suppressing impact of some of the government programs is still in force. For its part, the BOJ has seen firms reporting more pass-throughs of prices and cost increases, making it more wary of building inflation pressures.
by:Robert Brusca
|in:Economy in Brief
France| Jul 23 2026
French Manufacturing Survey Improves
French manufacturing saw its climate index rise to 101.3 in July from 100.2 in June, still below its May level and exceeded by readings from December 2025 to February 2026. Apart from those four readings, the French index was last stronger in March 2024. On data back to April 2023, some 40 observations, the industry climate index has been higher only six times. Still, on data back to 2001 the current climate reading has a 53-percentile standing. While the current reading is slightly above par on a long historic timeline and just above its median reading, which occurs at a ranking of 50, its 53-percentile ranking marks it as slightly above its historic median; however, it is quite strong compared to the past 40 months (3 1/3 years).

Manufacturing production expectations have improved slightly over the past year from -11.9 to -10.1, with a 38.6 percentile standing, below its historic median.

The recent trend for production has improved even more sharply over the past year from -2.5 to +7.3, with a 59.8 percentile standing, well above its historic median. Interestingly, when asked about their own industry, survey respondents were less upbeat as the current reading at -0.6 was better than its year-ago -5.0, but only at a 16.3 percentile standing, a rather dismal showing.

Orders & demand and foreign orders & demand both moved up from their year-ago readings, improving by some six to eight points from their respective year-ago levels. Orders & demand overall have a 69.9 percentile standing, quite a solid reading, compared to foreign orders & demand, with only a slightly above-median 50.7 percentile standing.

Pricing finds both the own likely price level and the overall manufacturing level higher than they were a year ago. Own prices are higher by 3.1 points while manufacturing prices in general are deemed higher by 18.8 points, a massive difference. But the price levels by each response, placed in a percentile standing mode, produce standings at about the 75th percentile for each of them.

The graph shows French manufacturing prices on another up-down cycle. The down phases triggered rapidly this time; however, it is probably going to give way to another spurt with the Middle East progress unraveling that progress; it has already happened in the real world but is not yet reflected in published economic reports. That means we will have to monitor the industry recovery path closely again.
by:Robert Brusca
|in:Economy in Brief
United Kingdom| Jul 22 2026
U.K. Headline and Core Inflation Rates Slow Sequentially as BOE Gets Ready to Meet
Inflation progress in the U.K. continues to make its way despite a month-to-month increase in the pace for the HICP measure, as well as for the CPIH headline and its core. The two headline measures for the CPIH and the HICP accelerated in June to 0.2% after each posted a small 0.1% increase in May. The CPIH core, which excludes energy, food, alcohol, and tobacco, advanced by 0.3% in June after rising by 0.2% in May.

Monthly data are ‘noisy’: These are minor and technical month-to-month changes since we're measuring inflation in tenths; this is an increase in the smallest unit that we present. If we look at the inflation progress over broader periods of three months, six months, and 12 months, we find there are ongoing decelerations of inflation in the HICP, the CPIH, and the CPIH core measures. I will continue this discussion solely in terms of the CPIH measures.

Sequential inflation: Headline inflation for the CPIH clocks 2.8% over 12 months; the annualized rate falls to 2.6% over six months and falls further to 1.8% annualized over three months, a clear pattern of progress. Core inflation on the CPIH gauge is also 2.8% over 12 months; it also falls to 2.6% over six months, but its deceleration over three months is to a pace of 2.3% (instead of 1.8% for the headline). Still, that's ongoing progress and the three-month 2.3% pace of core inflation is getting quite close to the Bank of England’s 2% objective.

Component behavior: We're going to further evaluate inflation by looking at how the components behave over different periods. In June, inflation accelerated in 66.7% of the categories. In May, it accelerated in 58.3% of the categories, whereas in April, it accelerated in only 50% of the categories. Inflation acceleration is going in the wrong direction to appease monetary authorities. However, these are calculations made across categories without taking any weighting into account. The headline performance takes weighting into account; the weighted core and the headlines are moving in the right direction.

Sequentially, on this broader basis, trends look better. Over 12 months compared to 12 months earlier, inflation is accelerating in only 33.3% of the categories, but then over six months compared to 12 months, the inflation rate is increasing in half of the categories. Over three months, that diffusion measure falls to 41.7%; i.e., only 41.7% of the categories are experiencing accelerating inflation over three months compared to six months. So, these are much better trends when viewed over a broader period. To bring a little bit more life into these abstract diffusion figures, I've also presented the median and average pace of inflation over three months, six months, and 12 months at the bottom of the table. There you can see that the median pace of inflation on this sequence is 3.5% over 12 months and six months, and then it falls to 3% over three months. The average pace of inflation over 12 months is 3.5%; it stays at 3.5% over six months and then decelerates to 2.9% over three months.

Ranking 12-month inflation rates: The final column ranks the current inflation rates across categories and for the headlines on data back to 2000. The HICP measure has a 62.9 percentile standing, the CPIH measure has a 72.5 percentile standing, while this CPIH core has a 79.6 percentile standing. These standings tell us that the inflation rates for these categories are high relative to where they have been since 2000. At the bottom of the table, we can see that the median inflation rate since 2000 has been 2.2%, while the average pace of inflation has been 2.5%. So, over the full, back-to-2000 span, inflation has been slightly north of the BOE target, depending on which measure we look at, the median or the average. The median pace has been quite close, while the average has been half a percentage point too high. A current ranking that puts the inflation rates above their respective medians (and a ranking of 50 represents the median) evaluated the individual category as above its own median at a time when the median and averages overall were already too hot. For all but three of these categories, inflation is still high by a historic experience (above a ranking of 50%). That probably continues to require a somewhat restrictive interest rate from the central bank. Across categories, the highest-ranking inflation is a 91.1 percentile standing for communication, followed by an 84-percentile standing for restaurants & hotels and standings in the 79th percentile for transportation as well as for the core CPI taken as a whole. Inflation rates below their medians for the period back to 2000 are for food & nonalcoholic beverages, furniture, household equipment & maintenance, and healthcare.
by:Robert Brusca
|in:Economy in Brief
Global| Jul 21 2026
ZEW Shows Mixed Gains in July
The ZEW survey, assessing the opinions of German financial experts for July, showed continuing weak but improving conditions in the euro area, Germany, and the United States, with a slight step back in China. Economic expectations improved month-to-month for Germany and China, while posting a slight setback in the United States. Inflation expectations weakened month-to-month sharply and significantly across the board in all four economic units. Short-term interest rates are broadly expected to fall, while long-term interest rates are also expected to ease, with the exception of China, where some small increases are anticipated. Stock markets are showing weaker performance, with moderate step backs across all four areas.

The average of the percentile standings for the four economic units surveyed is a standing in the 44th percentile. That average reflects China as the only survey member above its median observation. Germany has the lowest reading at a 17.8 percentile standing. Next, economic expectations have a 44-percentile average as Germany is the only one above its 50th percentile mark, putting it above its median. The U.S. and China show weaker level standings around their respective 40th percentiles. Inflation expectations have a midstream ranking at their 47th percentile, below their historic medians, with China above its historic median, Germany very close to its historic median, and the euro area and the U.S. posting more moderate standings. Short-term rate expectations have an average standing in their 68th percentile; all of the readings are above their 50th percentile mark, marginally so for the U.S. but more substantially for China and the euro area. Long-rate expectations have a 46.4 percentile average standing, with China well above its median on a ranking above the 50th percentile and with rankings between the 35th and 40th percentiles for Germany and the U.S. Stock market expectations average a 36.9 percentile standing for the four economic units, with the U.S. and China above their 50th percentile mark and the euro area and Germany, substantially weaker.

Most notably, inflation expectations fell sharply in July across the board. But that was probably earlier in the month and reflected a belief that the U.S.-Iran ceasefire would hold. Now that is largely reversed as the hot war is back in Iran. So, we will expect to see backtracking in this survey next month. Of course, that means that the interest rate portion of the survey might also be in for a rehash. That will be something to watch for.
by:Robert Brusca
|in:Economy in Brief
Germany| Jul 20 2026
German PPI Shows Pressure but Backs Off in June
The German PPI excluding construction fell by 0.3% in June following three months of increases. Sequentially, the PPI is accelerating, with a 1.8% rise over 12 months, a gain at a 4.3% annual rate over six months, and a gain at a 4.8% annual rate over three months. They are joined by PPI excluding energy index, which also shows an accelerating pattern, rising 2.4% over 12 months, at a 4.4% annual rate over six months, and then at a 6.4% annual rate over three months.

The inflation picture for in June is fine if you restrict your view to the headline, where it dropped by 0.3%. However, the PPI excluding energy rose by 0.3% in June after rising by 0.7% in May and by 0.5% in April, definitely a string of unruly increases for producer prices in Germany.

Sector trends: The sector inflation metrics are not seasonally adjusted; as a result, a sequential trend may not be as reliable. On the other hand, when data aren't seasonally adjusted, it's often because the statistical authorities haven't detected stable patterns of seasonality and so they present the data as not seasonally adjusted. Let’s look at the sector trends, NSA. For consumer goods, prices fall by 1.7% over 12 months, followed by a 0.2% annualized fall over six months and at a 0.3% annual drop over three months. The pattern is not particularly reassuring as the pace of decline is waning sequentially, although consumer goods are producing declines and showing price weakness. Investment goods, on the other hand, show prices steadily expanding, by 2.1% over 12 months, by 3.2% annually over six months but then stepping back slightly toward a 2.4% annual gain over three months. Not surprisingly, the inflation fire is really cooking under intermediate goods, where raw materials have a bigger role. Intermediate goods prices are up by 5.1% over 12 months; unadjusted prices are up at a 10.9% annual rate over six months and then at a 13.8% annual rate over three months. This is clearly the source of the price pressure in the PPI.

Energy prices: Energy prices are only part of the problem, however, and we can see in the energy prices at the bottom of the table that they are producing some strange and unstable price trends. Brent oil prices measured in euros fell 17% month-to-month in June after rising by 0.8% in May and by 1.6% in April. Sequentially, Brent prices are up by 20.2% over 12 months and up at a 94.1% annual rate over six months, but then they fall to a 47.6% annual rate over three months. Against that background, prices in the second quarter compared to the first quarter show an increase at a 141.3% annual rate. These metrics explain why it's hard to pin down the oil-price impact on the PPI. The quarter-to-quarter changes are enormous, the three-month change is extremely weak, but that follows an extraordinary annualized gain over six months, and in June alone oil prices fell sharply by 17%. It is hard to keep track of the oil-price passthrough cycle. So, we're going to have to wait for these trends to sort themselves out to get a better fix on the impact of oil and energy prices. However, we know that the recent good news on oil has since been rescinded as the Strait of Hormuz, which was briefly open, is shut again and the U.S. and Iran have scrapped their fledgling ceasefire agreement.

Euro area—what matters: Policy in the euro area is made based upon inflation for the whole union, not just for Germany, but it pays closer attention to the CPI than the PPI. Germany is still the largest economy in the monetary union, and its CPI is up 2.3% over 12 months, up at a 2.5% annual rate over six months, and rising at a 0.3% annual rate over three months. The CPI excluding energy for Germany is considerably more stable, up by 2.3% over 12 months and then rising at a 2% annual rate over both six months and three months. German ex-energy CPI prices appear to be calm, with inflation arrested; however, we can't say the same thing for the PPI ex-energy, with the inflation rate in a clear accelerating mode.
by:Robert Brusca
|in:Economy in Brief
Europe| Jul 17 2026
HICP Detail in EMU Shows Inflation Lurking
Inflation in EMU The recent inflation data in the European Monetary Union is emblematic of the kind of issues that central banks typically have to deal with. Casual central bank observers think of central banks as “leaning against the wind,” meaning that they raise rates when inflation is high and then cut rates when the economy gets weak. Indeed, this is largely what central banks do. However, they also try to be anticipatory when they can, seeking to get ahead of surges in inflation and periods when the economy is going to weaken. It's very hard to forecast those shifts in the best of circumstances, and so a great deal of the judgment that central banks form comes from the near-term trends, even though central banks are aware that the most recent data can also be some of the most volatile and prone to revision. With these sorts of caveats, we look at the recent inflation data from the European Monetary Union, and we see less than straightforward trends.

At its last meeting, the European Central Bank got out in front of events and started raising rates ahead of any action by the Federal Reserve. In June, its year-over-year HICP and core HICP rates both decelerated compared to their May values, with the headline easing to 2.8% from 3.2% and the core to 2.4% from 2.6%. Having inflation rates move in the opposite direction of policy, even in the short run, can create rough sledding for a central bank that is, in any event, trying to look at the broader trend rather than the most recent wiggle in the inflation rate.

The good, the bad, and the unexpected If we go back to December, we see the HICP in the monetary union at 2%, followed by 1.7% in January and 1.9% in February. At that point, things seemed to be well in hand. The problem was that the core inflation rate in December was 2.3%; while it fell to 2.2% in January, it popped back up to 2.4% in February. So, February was one of those uncomfortable months where both the headline and core rates were popping up, but the headline rate was still below the 2% target that the ECB seeks to attain. After February, of course, the world changed; the war in Iran spiked up oil prices and that's when inflation rate in the monetary union rose to 2.6% in March, 3% in April, and 3.2% in May. June inflation has backed down from those higher rates of change; however, conditions in the Middle East that had prompted some release of air from the inflation balloon in June have reversed, and so, the outlook once again is for oil prices to remain high and for inflation to remain troublesome.

Inflation still percolates At the bottom of the table, I show the percentage of categories with inflation accelerating over three months, and since February, that percentage is over 50% in each month. The percentage of categories with inflation accelerating over six months strings out to three months in a row. The decision by the ECB to raise rates is entirely understandable given these trends. In addition, and perhaps less tethered to any particular monetary rule, included in the right-hand column, the inflation ranking in June is compared to data back to the year 2001, a roughly 25-year period. Over this timeline, the headline HICP ranks in the 83rd percentile and the core rate in the 82nd percentile. In both cases, we're looking at inflation being higher only 17% or 18% of the time during this span, which once again marks this as a strong inflation period.
by:Robert Brusca
|in:Economy in Brief
Europe| Jul 16 2026
EMU Trade Balance Swings to Deficit in May
Global trade volumes continue to expand Despite military actions around various geopolitical hotspots, war zones, and other geopolitical tensions, plus the imposition of tariffs, World Trade volumes in dry goods have continued to expand significantly since early 2025.

Exports from the European monetary Union have grown over the past year by 5.5%, while imports have surged ahead at a 14.3% annual rate. The growth in trade is driven mostly by nonmanufactured goods, and this is largely a pricing effect as inflation has remained high and oil prices during this period have risen sharply.

The trade balance and its dynamics The euro area trade balance in May slipped into a deficit of €4.97 billion after having a surplus of only €836 million in April. Over the last 12 months, the surplus averaged €5.7 billion per month. We can build up the trade balance several different ways to explain it. One way to understand it is that there are certain tensions between manufactured and nonmanufactured goods. The balance on manufactured goods trade 12 months ago was an average €36 billion over the previous 12 months, whereas it's currently showing a 12-month average that has fallen to a €26 billion surplus. However, all of the trend changes appear to have occurred between a year ago and earlier this past year, since the 12-month, six-month, and three-month averages, as well as the stand-alone reading for May, show manufacturing surpluses in the neighborhood of €25 billion. For nonmanufactured goods, 12 months ago the average monthly deficit was €22.8 billion, whereas over the last 12 months the average has been about €20.2 billion; that's a slightly smaller deficit. The sequential nonmanufacturing deficit balance, however, crept up through the course of the last 12 months, and in May it registered a €30.95 billion deficit. Erosion in the deficit position of the euro area is significantly based on an increased deficit in nonmanufactured goods.

Aggregate trade flows show exports accelerating from 12-months to six-months to three-months, with the same progression for imports, except that the import growth rates are substantially higher than for exports. Exports of manufactured goods accelerate from 12-months to six-months to three-months, but the exports of nonmanufactured goods are stronger and accelerate much more on that same timeline. Imports show manufactured goods in a relatively weak acceleration mode from 12-months to three-months as well. For nonmanufactured goods, the import growth rates post incredible results; they're extremely strong. This, of course, is mostly a pricing effect reflecting the impact of oil prices.

The table includes a few bilateral comparisons. Germany shows accelerating imports, and while there's steady growth in exports, they're not accelerating the same as imports. For France, exports accelerate quite strongly while imports accelerated, but with much less vigor. Much of this has to do with France’s greater reliance on nuclear power as France gets about 65% or more of its electricity from nuclear energy compared to only 11% for Germany, which has cut back and is transitioning away from nuclear power, making it more dependence on other energy sources and boosting energy imports. U.K. exports and imports are both showing growth, but there is no clear trend.

The table also presents export data for five European nations. Exports accelerate for each of them except for Italy, where exports are in a markedly different and decelerating pattern.

On balance, trade trends are in flux although manufacturing trends seem to be quite stable. Volatile oil and other commodity prices are causing severe swings in trade flows across Europe and certainly globally as well. With the situation in the Strait of Hormuz still unresolved, the outlook for trade will continue to expect volatility.
by:Robert Brusca
|in:Economy in Brief
Europe| Jul 15 2026
IP in EMU Remains Weak
Industrial production in the European Monetary Union (EMU) shows only a very minor and idiosyncratic sector acceleration in the nondurable goods sector. Other sectors show trends that are not focused and drift into random variability. Nondurable goods output shows growth of -10.9% over 12 months, improving to a pace of -9.9% over six months annualized and improving further to -8.7% annualized over three months. The irony is that nondurable output is contracting over all these periods, but the contractions are becoming slightly less virulent. It is nothing to base any optimism on despite the technically ‘improving’ trend.

Total output and manufacturing output in the EMU each show strong gains annualized over three months after declines on balance over six months and 12 months.

While the secular trends are not clear in showing persistent accelerations or decelerations for the most part, it's true that output across the consumer industries continues to show contraction on all timelines. When we move to intermediate goods and capital goods, we're looking at output showing increases over 12 months, six months, and three months. Even if there are not clear progressions, the persistence of output gains is notable. This again underscores the extent to which expansion is being carried ahead by business and not by the consumer, even in Europe.

On a quarter-to-date (QTD) basis (two months into the second quarter), output is generally showing increases, with the exception of consumer durable goods showing an output decline at a 2.4% annual rate. Top-line growth is still very unimpressive, with total industrial production at a 0.6% annual growth rate and manufacturing alone at a 0.4% annual growth rate; neither of these is strong, solid, or impressive.

Turning to the percentile standing data that evaluate the strength of year-over-year growth on a historic timeline, we see that manufacturing and total output growth log percentile standings just below the 30th percentile. Consumer goods, as an aggregate category, have a 1.3% standing, which is extremely weak. That standing consists of a 29% standing for consumer durables and a 1.3 percentile standing for consumer nondurables output.

Once again, it is intermediate and capital goods that are the backbone of support for output. Intermediate goods’ annual growth rate has a 63-percentile standing, and the year-over-year growth rate for capital goods has a 52.9 percentile standing. Both being above the 50% mark puts them above their median for the period of analysis; that period extends back to August 2006, roughly a 20-year period.

I previously reported on the country detail. The country detail shows accelerating manufacturing output in Ireland, Portugal, and Sweden (Sweden that is not a monetary union member). Austria, a monetary union member, shows persistent deceleration, while the rest of the countries in the group show somewhat chaotic patterns.

While the percentile standing for year-over-year growth in manufacturing is at the 27th percentile mark for the whole of the monetary union, that amalgamation includes size weighting for that evaluation. If we take the unweighted averages for the percentile standings for 11 of the oldest monetary union members, their average individual ranking is much higher at a 48.3 percentile mark. Clearly, there are great differences by country across the monetary union, and this gives the ECB an additional headache in trying to make one monetary policy for such a varied group of economies.
by:Robert Brusca
|in:Economy in Brief