Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 28, 2007 14:47:59 GMT -6
GDP revised downward from 3.5% to 2.2% for 4th quarter, largest downward revision in 1 1/2 years. Downward revisions of this magnitude are unusual. A downward revision of 1.3% in the quarterly GDP estimate has occurred only 7 times in the last 30 years.
New Home Sales declined 16.6% in January, the largest monthly decline since 1994.
New Home Prices for January 2007 declined 2.1% since January 2006.
Investment in home building for Q4 declined 19.1%, the largest decline in 15 years.
The decline in business investment (in inventories) was much less than initially estimated, further reducing Q4 GDP.
Non-residential investment spending declined 2.4% during Q4, much less than the initially reported 0.4% decline. This was the 1st decline in nonresidential spending since the 1st quarter of 2003.
Business contracted for the 2nd straight month in February, following January's decline. February's Chicago PMI was 47.9, almost 1 point lower than January's 48.8. Any reading below 50 indicates contraction. The index had been above the 50 mark since mid-2003.
Consumer spending for Q4 was downwardly revised from a +4.4% increased to a +4.2% increase.
The wider trade deficit than initially estimated further reduced Q4 GDP. (When the original overestimate of 3.5% GDP growth was published, the figures for December's trade deficit weren't even known yet. They had simply been "guess-timated" by the BEA to concoct their 3.5% GDP growth figure.)
Economy Grows Slower than Expected in Q4
Economomy ends '06 at slow growth pace
Below is the current graph from Briefing.com of quarterly GDP, showing the 4th quarter GDP growth of only 2.2%.
This graph can also be found at Briefing.com: GDP
It's interesting to note that Briefing.com had still not updated their 4th quarter GDP numbers in their table as of 5:15 PM EST, even though the "revised" numbers were published at 8:30 AM EST. Could this be a deliberate attempt not to publicize bad economic information? (Up until the last several weeks, Briefing.com had been publishing these numbers as soon as they were available. Their policy appears to have changed, however, now that most new economic data is negative. The timing of this policy change is certainly interesting, as well as convenient.)
New Home Sales declined 16.6% in January, the largest monthly decline since 1994.
New Home Prices for January 2007 declined 2.1% since January 2006.
Investment in home building for Q4 declined 19.1%, the largest decline in 15 years.
The decline in business investment (in inventories) was much less than initially estimated, further reducing Q4 GDP.
Non-residential investment spending declined 2.4% during Q4, much less than the initially reported 0.4% decline. This was the 1st decline in nonresidential spending since the 1st quarter of 2003.
Business contracted for the 2nd straight month in February, following January's decline. February's Chicago PMI was 47.9, almost 1 point lower than January's 48.8. Any reading below 50 indicates contraction. The index had been above the 50 mark since mid-2003.
Consumer spending for Q4 was downwardly revised from a +4.4% increased to a +4.2% increase.
The wider trade deficit than initially estimated further reduced Q4 GDP. (When the original overestimate of 3.5% GDP growth was published, the figures for December's trade deficit weren't even known yet. They had simply been "guess-timated" by the BEA to concoct their 3.5% GDP growth figure.)
Economy Grows Slower than Expected in Q4
Economomy ends '06 at slow growth pace
Below is the current graph from Briefing.com of quarterly GDP, showing the 4th quarter GDP growth of only 2.2%.
This graph can also be found at Briefing.com: GDP
It's interesting to note that Briefing.com had still not updated their 4th quarter GDP numbers in their table as of 5:15 PM EST, even though the "revised" numbers were published at 8:30 AM EST. Could this be a deliberate attempt not to publicize bad economic information? (Up until the last several weeks, Briefing.com had been publishing these numbers as soon as they were available. Their policy appears to have changed, however, now that most new economic data is negative. The timing of this policy change is certainly interesting, as well as convenient.)