The Federal Reserve today reported Industrial Production for May. Production unexpectedly declined 0.2% from the prior month, which was worse than the forecast of a 0.1% increase. Manufacturing output was unchanged in May, the output of utilities shrank 1.8 percent, and the output at mines rose 0.1 percent. Capacity utilization slipped 0.2% to 79.4%.
The following set of graphs comes from the Federal Reserve's web site and show the relationship of high tech manufacturing to industrial production overall.
Take a look at the middle chart, the one that shows percent change year over year. It's interesting to see that the recession in 2000 (gray highlight) and its accompanying brutal bear market in stocks did not see a dip in industrial production as severe as those seen during the 1970's and 1980's recessions.
Looking at the most recent data points in the same chart, it is also interesting to note that without the positive contribution of tech, the percent change in industrial production would now be slipping negative.
It has been documented that manufacturing is no longer as important to the general economy as it used to be. The middle chart seems to support this concept as it clearly displays the percent increases in industrial production have become narrower over time. The top chart also shows how industrial production has been somewhat flat, or at least growing very slowly, over the last decade or so when compared to previous decades of stronger growth.
It's always worthwhile to poke around in the data the Fed makes available to see what's behind the headline announcements that show up on most news sites.
Sources: Federal Reserve Statistical Release - Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Industrial Production - tech propping up the numbers?
Blog Archive
-
►
2011
(40)
-
►
July
(9)
- Range-bound in an ugly market
- Durable Goods for June -- tech keeps muddling alon...
- 7 Profitable Tech Stocks with 50-DMA turning Bulli...
- A fix for the Trade-Radar software is available no...
- Trade-Radar is back on the air
- Trade-Radar weekly data running late
- From the doghouse to under-the-radar market leader...
- 15 more value stocks breaking out
- Weekly Market Update -- where did all the bears go...
-
►
July
(9)
-
►
2010
(189)
-
►
December
(7)
- Is CSC on the verge of better things?
- IT spending to increase in 2011 -- how should you ...
- Intevac -- breakout in progress, more room to run?...
- We'd like to hear what you have to say!
- ETF Trending Report -- one sector to avoid, one se...
- How much longer for the semiconductor rally?
- Labor shortages in the most populous nation on ear...
-
►
December
(7)
-
▼
2008
(266)
-
▼
June
(21)
- Alert HQ for the week ending 6-27-2008
- ProShares ETFs - why trading volume makes a diffe...
- Two ProShares inverse ETFs not yet overbought
- The Trouble with Trend Reversal Indicators, Part 2...
- Can the Saudis keep us from testing the March lows...
- ProShares ETF Report - Strongest BUY and SELL Sign...
- Alert HQ for the week ending 6-20-2008
- NII Holdings - still plenty of opportunity
- Industrial Production - tech propping up the numbe...
- S&P 500 Weekly Sector Stats, 6-13-2008
- Can stocks extend Friday's party?
- Alert HQ for the week ending 6-13-2008
- Big gap in social networking site audience
- Ocwen Financial - making the best of hard times
- S&P 500 - defensive sectors and energy lead
- Oil jumps while the stock market slides down the d...
- Alert HQ for the week ending June 6, 2008
- TradeRadar portfolio - June review
- Are semiconductor shipments a leading indicator of...
- S&P 500 - sector analysis shows more room for gain...
- Alert HQ - bonus BUY signals this week!
-
▼
June
(21)
| Disclaimer: This site may include market analysis. All ideas, opinions, and/or forecasts, expressed or implied herein, are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a recommendation to invest, trade, and/or speculate in the markets. Any investments, trades, and/or speculations made in light of the ideas, opinions, and/or forecasts, expressed or implied herein, are committed at your own risk, financial or otherwise. |


Subscribe to













0 comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.