Archive
Trump Tactical Targeted Tariffs: A Reminder of the Impact of Tariffs
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, aka AOC, recently railed against the President when he threatened Colombia with tariffs if they should refuse to accept their citizens being deported back to them. In her typical hyperventilated fashion, she implored us to “remember” that “WE pay the tariffs, not Colombia.”
For a change, AOC is not entirely wrong but merely mostly wrong. She seems to remember at least one important thing from Econ 101 and that is that businesses don’t pay anything to anyone, since a business is just a legal structure. Shareholders, other stakeholders, consumers, or suppliers pay and/or receive the cost of goods sold, taxes, wages, and so on. Unfortunately, I don’t think that was her point and she missed the important bit which is that ‘who pays the tariff’ depends almost entirely on the elasticity of demand for the product. Here are two charts. In each case, the tariff shifts the supply curve leftward/upward by the amount of the tariff, the same amount in both pictures. In each picture, the quantity consumed of the good being tariffed goes from c to d and the price goes from a to b as the market moves from one equilibrium to the other.
The first chart shows an inelastic demand curve, which is characterized by the fact that large changes in price do not change the quantity demanded very much. In this case, the main effect is that consumers buy almost as much of the good, but the price moves almost the full amount of the tariff. Consumers end up paying most of the tariff.
The second chart shows an elastic demand curve, in which even small changes in price induce large changes in the quantity demanded. In this case, the main effect is that consumers buy much less of the more-expensive good, and the price goes up only a little so that the seller bears most of the cost of the tariff.
Thus a blanket statement that “we pay the tariffs” is wrong. It is sensitive to the characteristics of the product market. One needs to be very careful about how we define the product market because it matters. I would argue that the elasticity of the demand for coffee is quite low, which is why Starbucks even exists. If the demand for coffee was very elastic, charging $5 a cup for bad coffee would not produce a line around the block at rush hour. But that is not what we are talking about here. The question here is, what is the demand elasticity for Colombian coffee? The answer to that question is very different. Coffee as a way to wake up in the morning has few close substitutes. But Colombian coffee has many, very very very close substitutes. My favorite right now is Ethiopian Yirgacheffe coffee. I also like a good Panama Boquete. Add 20% to the cost of the Boquete, and I think I’ll mostly drink the Yirgacheffe. Add 20% to both of them, and I’ll go to Brazilian Santos, or Colombian, or Kona.
I think the reaction of the Colombian President tells you everything you need to know about what he perceives about the demand for Colombian coffee and therefore the impact a tariff would have on exports of Colombian coffee to the United States. Trump very quickly got what he wanted with his Trump Tactical Targeted Tariffs (TTTT™). So to review: +1 for TTTT, -1 for AOC.
A couple of other points about tariffs and tariff strategy.
First, this episode illustrates a very important distinction to be made between the use of targeted tariffs and the use of blanket tariffs. Blanket tariffs, for example on everything we import from a major trading partner or on every trading partner, definitely increase prices for consumers. How much, and which prices, depends on how easily domestic untariffed supply can substitute for the imported supply. But the answer is certainly that prices go up. But let me point you to two articles I’ve written previously about this:
Tariffs Don’t Hurt Domestic Growth (https://inflationguy.blog/2019/08/28/tariffs-dont-hurt-domestic-growth/), August 28, 2019. This is a really good piece. In summary, tariffs are bad for global growth but they are not the unalloyed negative you learned about in school. How good/bad they are for growth depends on whether you are a net importer or a net exporter, and how large the Ex-Im sector is in your country. Truly free trade works in a non-theoretical world only if “(a) all of the participants are roughly equal in total capability or (b) the dominant participant is willing to concede its dominant position in order to enrich the whole system, rather than using that dominant position to secure its preferred slices for itself.” Really, you should read this.
The Re-Onshoring Trend and the Long-Term Impact on Core Goods (https://inflationguy.blog/2022/02/22/the-re-onshoring-trend-and-the-long-term-impact-on-core-goods/) February 22, 2022. This is not directly about tariffs, but the broad imposition of tariffs (if they happen) should be thought of as reinforcing this prior trend. The prior trend, of re-onshoring production to the US, has been under way for several years – the way that COVID exposed long supply lines certainly helped the trend but the long-term globalization trend was already reversing and in this article I argue that this means core goods inflation going forward is likely to be small positive, rather than persistently in deflation. In the context of the current discussion, President Trump has certainly made re-onshoring of production a major goal of his Administration. So whether it happens because of TTTT, or because of blanket tariffs, or because of tax breaks given for domestic production, the direction of the inflation arrow is clear.
I’m not worried about hyperinflation from tariffs and I think that if you’re the biggest and the strongest economic actor they’re probably more good than bad for domestic economic outcomes.
Reality is more nuanced than we learned in school. Not everything that expands the economy is good, and not everything that is good expands the economy. Not everything that is bad causes inflation to go up, and not everything that causes inflation to go up is bad.
Framing Home Price Inflation
The ever-increasing cost of homes obviously causes a lot of people a lot of angst. Chief among those groups, naturally, are the people who are planning to buy a home but do not yet have one; and, since higher home prices are very highly correlated with higher rents, renters too are alarmed that the rent is too damn high! (if that reference eludes you, educate yourself at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUx_32ABtw4 )
Right behind the people who have to actually buy homes and rent apartments, though, are the economists who seem to be perennially alarmed that home prices are “in a bubble” again. Certainly, if you look at nominal home prices (represented here by the S&P Case Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index, normalized like all of the charts in this article so that December 31, 1989 = 100 and the latest figure is for the end of September 2024) then you can see the cause for concern. Home prices are up 75% since the peak of the home price bubble of the late 2000s! If a house at $241,000 was in a bubble in 2006 (and subsequently declined in price to 175k), then surely it’s in a bubble if it’s now at $425k?
You can see in this chart the rapid acceleration in 2021-2022, and that should be a clue about one of the things that is going on with home prices. The overall price level is a lot higher than it was in 2006; the dollar simply doesn’t go as far as it did back then. Indeed I’ve chronicled how, thanks to the supercharged increase in the money supply, consumer prices are up 23% since just before COVID. Obviously, then, we have to adjust the dollar price of a home for the change in the measuring stick (the dollar) itself. Here are real home prices.
This still looks like a bubble, if real home prices are 13% higher than the bubble peak. After all, homes are unproductive real assets. Over a long period of time, home prices have risen less than 0.5% per year after inflation. In this way a home is like a lump of gold. Ten years from now, the lump of gold is still a lump of gold and so you would expect the real return to be roughly zero (you have the same amount of stuff at the end that you started with). In the case of home prices, there is deterioration of the housing stock over time but also new construction and homes have historically gotten larger and more comfortable, so some small drift higher in real prices makes sense. But home prices since 1989 are up 70% in real terms, when they should be up roughly 25 * 0.5% = 12.5%. And since the 2006 peak, we’d expect 9% (18 years x 0.5%) would represent a similar peak. We’ve risen more than that!
So, definitely a bubble, right? That deflation everyone keeps promising us is imminent, along with the collapse of banks and all the other stuff? Not so fast; there is one other important thing to consider and that is household formation. Or, rather, household formation compared to housing-unit formation.
We start by imagining what could plausibly push real home prices above or below a long-run flattish trend, that would represent a legitimate effect and not a bubble. What immediately comes to mind for me is the fact that for at least the last few years we have seen a massive increase in the US in the number of heads over which we need to put roofs. Something in the ballpark of 10 million new residents need roofs, and we surely have not constructed that many new roofs. For a long time, I’ve been highlighting this as one really good reason to not expect rental or home price deflation: the demand relative to the supply is out of whack. However, it turns out that we don’t actually need to rely on the ‘unofficial’ increase in the population to conclude that the “bubble” isn’t so bubbly.
The chart below, covering 2004 to the present, shows the real home price (the second chart above) on the y-axis. On the x-axis, I have a ratio of the number of households in the United States (source: US Census Bureau) divided by the total number of housing units in the country (source: US Census Bureau). As the ratio moves higher, it means there are more households for every housing unit or alternatively, fewer vacant units. I only have the housing unit data back to 2004, as that’s what was on Bloomberg.
There is a pretty clear relationship here between real home prices, and the occupation ratio. I have highlighted two areas. One, in red, is the January 2006 through June 2007 period – sort of the teeth of the housing bubble. Those points are well above the line, suggesting that prices were high relative to the occupation ratio. In fact, January 2007 is the point that is the highest above the regression line. On the other hand, we have the most-recent point in green. This is right on the regression line. Yes, real home prices have gone up a lot. But that’s mostly because the construction rate of new housing units has not kept up with household formation.
As an aside, the three points at (0.91, 130) or so are from mid-2020, when there was a surge of household formation but home prices (and rents) were being constrained by the lockdowns. In retrospect, it was a great time to buy a house!
Note that the charts above do not include undocumented residents in the US, except inasmuch as the Census Bureau is including them. Since the total increase in households since January 2021 is only about 6mm…and for the prior 4 years, the increase was 5mm…I am fairly confident that the recent surge in illegal immigration is not reflected on this chart. Ergo, you could make the case that home prices are too low in real terms. If every 5 illegals form one household, the ratio would rise from 0.912 to 0.926, and we would be off the chart to the right-hand side.
Now, this does not mean that real home prices will not decline. In fact, I am very confident that at some point they will, as building catches up with household formation. That does not mean that home prices will fall in nominal terms, however; I suspect that what is more likely to happen is that over a number of years, home prices will drift sideways to slightly higher while overall consumer prices continue to rise. But, if 10 million illegal immigrants are deported, the building of new units will catch up a lot more quickly and nominal prices and rents could decline in that case.
If that happened, rents really would be ‘too damn high’. And that is one very big reason that mass deportation is not inflationary. It also is not very likely; I have the over/under at 1mm deportations.
Inflation Guy’s CPI Summary (December 2024)
It is important – and I say it every year – to remember that when we are looking at economic data from December (and in many data series such as Employment, January as well) there are massive error bars around the numbers. The government doesn’t report error bars, but they should. Frankly, when it comes to Nonfarm Payrolls, I barely glance at the number because it just doesn’t mean very much.
The problem isn’t so dramatic in CPI at the headline index level, because the main sources of volatility in the index also happen to be the ones that provide all of the seasonal adjustments, so we tend to miss estimates roughly as often in December as in other months. As we go through the numbers today, however, you’ll notice a bunch of things swinging one way after swinging the opposite way last month. That’s the sort of thing that can easily be caused by the placement of Thanksgiving, so you can see reversals from November’s number to December’s. I am not saying that everything in the CPI report today is infected by that effect; just keep it in mind.
Now, while I say the ‘problem’ of seasonal volatility isn’t as bad in CPI at the headline level, recognize that December sees the most-severe seasonal adjustment to the headline figure. Here are the seasonal adjustment factors for 2023 (they don’t change much). A number below 1.0 means that the seasonally-adjusted headline number will be higher than the nonseasonally adjusted number, because the seasonal pattern ‘expects’ the weakness, and vice-versa. You can see that December is the month furthest from 1.0. What you can’t see from this chart is that if you want to get technical about it, December is also the only month for which we could really reject the null hypothesis that the adjustment factor is 1.0…in other words, the only month where we are really confident that the effect is to cause the NSA CPI to be lower than the average month. November, maybe.
As an aside, this is why April maturity TIPS tend to have higher yields than January maturities. The January TIPS mature to an index that is an average of October and November CPIs, while April TIPS mature to an index that is an average of January and February CPIs. So April TIPS always get an extra December CPI in them, and if there’s one month you don’t want, it’s December. So April TIPS have to have a slightly higher yield to entice people to hold them.
Right, that’s a big prelude discussion. Summing up: don’t get too excited either way with this number. More important is that the overall market has been selling off. 10-year breakevens have risen 14bps, and 10-year real yields have gone up 26bps. How much of this is because of a fear that inflation is turning, is unclear. But in December, the overall data was pretty close to expectations. Core inflation came in at +0.225% m/m, compared to expectations of +0.25%, which is less dramatic than it looked when rounded and it printed at 0.2% vs expectations of 0.3%. A small miss lower, and to be fair the best core number since July.
Headline was only 0.04% NSA…which gets adjusted to +0.39% when the seasonally-adjusted number is reported. See what I mean? So we look at the y/y numbers, which basically replaces last December with this December (thus neatly avoiding the seasonality issue). Y/Y headline CPI rose from 2.73% to 2.90%, and Y/Y core fell to 3.25% from 3.30%.
You may notice that none of those numbers looks like it’s at 2%. Nor is Median CPI, which was (my estimate) +0.31% m/m, the highest since September. If I’m right about that print then the y/y would drop to 3.86% from 3.89%.
So on the macro side, top-down, this does not look like the sort of data that the Fed was expecting when it started easing in September. Since in my opinion this has been eminently foreseeable for a long time when you looked at what was driving CPI, the conclusion must be either that the Fed is just incompetent when it comes to inflation forecasts, or it doesn’t care about inflation, or the rate cut had nothing to do with economics and was just a political gambit to get Harris elected. None of those answers is flattering. I suspect answers #1 and #3 are the main drivers of the most-recent policy error.
The good news in the inflation figures is that there’s no one major group that still looks alarming.
When we drill down to the monthly data this month…that’s where you see the seasonal volatility. For example:
- Used Cars was expected to be roughly flat. It was +1.2% after +2.0%.
- Rents rebounded; OER and Primary Rents were +0.31% after +0.23% and +0.21% respectively last month.
- Lodging Away from Home was -0.95% this month; it was +3.16% last month.
- Airfares were +3.93% this month; they were +0.37% last month.
- Car and truck rental +0.58% this month; -2.99% last month.
- Baby Food +0.42% this month; -0.12% last month.
- Medicinal Drugs +0.08% this month; -0.10% last month.
- Doctors’ Services was lower, +0.06% vs +0.28% in November; but Hospital Services were higher at +0.23% compared to 0.00%.
A few broader observations. Core Goods and Core Services both continue to move back towards zero: goods from underneath and services from above. CPI for Used Cars is still -3.4% y/y, and I’d expect it to slowly recover from the spike and reversal stemming from COVID. But we now have an extra factor, and that’s the devastating California wildfires. There are two things you see burned out in every picture. Vehicles, for one. Used and New car inflation is going to turn higher, and maybe quite a bit, going forward as people in California need to replace their wheels. Over the medium term, the dollar’s strength would help keep core goods inflation tame and even slightly negative, but thanks to the wildfires we are likely to see core goods back above zero shortly.
And the other thing you see burned out, of course, are houses. Primary Rents have been slowly converging with our model, but rents are going to get goosed in California immediately and that effect will be smeared out because of local laws against ‘price gouging’ that prevent landlords from hiking their rents immediately to the equilibrium level implied by lots more demand and lots less supply. So they’ll hike, but it will take longer. This is mainly a California effect, naturally, but it will be large enough to affect the national numbers.
Incidentally, you’ll also see these in Lodging Away from Home inflation not just in California but in the entire western US. And maybe further, since remote work makes it possible to temporarily relocate almost anywhere. Federal support of the displaced will ensure that is not a 1-month effect. So in shelter, January and February (and beyond) numbers are going to be a lot more important than today’s release.
I am sure that will be used later to argue that “this inflation in 2025 is all due to the wildfires,” but we should remember that inflation in 2024 was (at best) leveling out and possibly hooking higher again. Broad core inflation ex-shelter has now risen four months in a row. It isn’t alarming, at 2.12%, but it isn’t just shelter keeping inflation above target and the story in early 2025 won’t be ‘all about shelter and cars.’ Supercore is also improving, but it isn’t going to pull the overall CPI down to target if Shelter doesn’t keep decelerating and as Core Goods goes back positive.
Supercore is indeed looking better, but we still have wages rising at 4.3% y/y. Remember that wages and supercore are modestly cointegrated. Or, in English, supercore is where wage-driven inflation tends to live. Wage growth needs to soften a lot more in order to get supercore back to target-like levels.
Again, all of this is December and in January we have had a massive natural disaster that will affect inflation data as soon as next month – and for months going forward. This will obfuscate the fact that the Fed already made a second policy error (after the COVID-era error of adding too much liquidity and not pulling it back quickly enough), dropping rates prematurely and letting money growth re-accelerate (M2 y/y is at 3.7%, but annualizing at 4.7% over the last 6 months and 5.8% over the last quarter ended in November). The bottom line is that the December inflation data is just not very important. What happens next…and what is already happening…is the story that will drive inflation and markets in 2025.
(Admin note: I missed doing the CPI Report podcast last month but it will post this month again! In roughly an hour, I suspect).
Inflation Market Valuations and Tactics in the New Year
There is so much to talk about, since it has been such a long time since I posted, that it is a little hard to know where to begin. So let’s begin 2025 with a few quick notes about inflation markets and markets generally. I wouldn’t call this an outlook, per se…I am trying to resist making that year-end/year-beginning offering to the jinx gods…but an update with some observations. As an aside, later today I’m planning to post a new Inflation Guy Podcast (this is a Podbean link but it’s available anywhere you get your podcasts) with some comments on the trajectory of inflation (as opposed to markets), and how that may be affected by things such as the massive California wildfires.
I will begin with a content warning: this note is much denser than most of my columns. If you’re a retail investor and/or only interested in developments in inflation rather than inflation instruments, then you might skip this one. I’ll talk more about expectations for inflation, of course, in other posts. But that’s not today’s post.
Let’s start by looking at 10-year real yields. The blue line in the chart below is 10-year TIPS yields; the black line (because it’s topical) is 10-year UK Gilt linker (real) yields. TIPS yields are up to 2.25%. Normally, when they get to around 2% I think of them as roughly fair in an absolute sense, because long-term risk-free real yields ought to in principle look something like long-term real economic growth. Instructive in the chart below is that as far as nominal UK yields have risen, inflation-linked yields are still well below US real yields.[1]
That’s partly a clientele effect, since there are many forced holders of UK linkers. But still, while US real yields ran up from -1% to +2.25% once inflation started (that is, TIPS declined in a mark-to-market sense when inflation went up – very, very important to understand if you think of TIPS as an inflation hedge. They are, but only at maturity), Gilt real yields went from -3% to +1.19%. The selloff was 100bps worse. Yikes.
The next chart shows my quantitative measure of relative cheapness (negative indicates richness, because I’m a bond guy). I said before that TIPS are now roughly fair in an absolute sense; relative to nominal bonds, they’re also roughly fair to slightly cheap. That’s the blue line. You can see that TIPS for most of the past decade were pretty cheap relative to nominals (even while they were absolutely rich because of negative real yields), but since people started caring a bit about inflation they’ve gone back to being mostly fair. However, Gilt linkers have been massively rich for a long time – again, because of the forced-holders problem. But they are starting to get cheaper. That 100bps greater selloff I mentioned above happens to show up here as 100bps cheapening relative to nominals, and relative to TIPS!
Today’s column is supposed to be mostly about US markets, but I can’t help myself. I ought to also point out that breakeven inflation in the UK is roughly 100bps higher than it is in the US, even though core inflation in the UK is 3.6% and in the US it’s 3.5%. So, possibly, part of the relative richness of UK linkers – since I’m looking at each country’s linkers in relation to its own nominal bonds – is actually cheapness of UK nominals, compared to the actual inflation there. Or maybe it’s the richness of US nominals, compared to the actual inflation here. (This is why relative value trading is so useful and important – we don’t need to have an opinion about which of these two things is true. Are US nominals too rich, maybe because they can be financed cheaply in repo markets at ‘special’ rates? Or are UK nominals too cheap, maybe because the UK budget situation is perceived to be somehow even more precarious than our own? I don’t know.)
Sorry about the digression there to the UK. I just got excited. The inflation markets and inflation in Japan are also really interesting right now, especially as wage growth is surging and the yen is bordering on collapsing…yet 10-year inflation in Japan is quoted around 1.5%. If you can get someone to transact. Maybe I’ll talk about Japan another time.
US markets. First, note the weird shape of the US CPI swaps curve.
I have several issues here, with one of them being the overall optimism that inflation is definitely going back to be close to target, despite any real sign that is going to happen. It borders on religious conviction, frankly. But also, we have a weird implied path where inflation droops, then spikes near the 10-year point, and then declines. To be sure, I’m committing a chart crime here with the y-axis; if you stepped back this would look almost flat. But this is more than enough for a hedgie to be interested, usually. What is really happening is that if we had a core inflation swaps curve (I do, but you don’t) it would show a gentle decline out to 8 years. It’s steep on the CPI swaps curve because the energy curves imply that energy inflation will drag core inflation lower for years.
Of course, they won’t but you can hedge the energy. Out to about 5-8 years, probably. And that’s probably why we have that little dip in the CPI curve – it’s really an energy thing.
So I’ve said that 2.25% real yields on TIPS are fairly attractive. About as attractive as they’ve been for some time, actually. But be aware of a couple of things. One is that the bond market as a whole is under pressure and probably will stay under pressure for a bit as investors worry about financing the government in a world where the trade deficit is probably going to be coming down (implying that domestic savings will have to go up, and the only good way to make that happen is with higher yields). Real yields could go higher, and probably will at some point. But you should recognize that seasonality works in favor of the TIPS buyer right now.
Breakevens have a strong tendency to rise in the early part of the year. In 22 of the last 26 years, 10-year breakevens have risen in the 60 days following January 8th. To be sure, some of that is because TIPS bear flat-to-negative accretions in the early part of the year because CPI in December almost always declines on an NSA basis, so the rise in price/decline in real yields that helps widen breakevens is partly reflecting a change in the source of total return in TIPS during those months to being more price and less yield.[2] The point being that buying nominal bonds in the beginning of the year, up until about May, runs into difficult seasonal patterns but this is not true with TIPS. Indeed, it means that if you’re buying fixed income at all in Q1, it probably should be TIPS.
Finally, I really should say something about equities here. I think it’s always important to realize that TIPS yields are a direct competitor with equities. Nominal yields are not, necessarily, because 7% nominal yields in a world where prices (and earnings) are going up at 9% are much worse than 5% nominal yields in a world where prices (and earnings) are going up at 3%. Equity earnings do tend to rise with inflation (but stocks are a poor inflation hedge because multiples also tend to contract significantly when there is inflation, so you need to hold equities for a long, long time for them to be a good inflation hedge), and since they do it means that inflation-linked yields are a more-fair comparison. Real yields at 2.25% are neither rich nor cheap in the grand scheme of things. But equities are, once you discount expected earnings growth for expected inflation. I calculate the expected long-term S&P real return assuming that the current multiple of long-term average earnings (the Shiller PE) reverts 2/3 of the way to its mean over 10 years. By making it 10 years, and not demanding full reversion, I lessen the impact of apparent overvaluation on expected returns. But high returns do, historically, tend to precede low returns! In any event, you can debate my approach but below you can see my point.
This first chart shows 10-year TIPS yields set against my calculated expected 10-year annualized real returns from the S&P 500. Granted, the S&P 500 is cheaper outside of the Magnificent 7. But you can see that while stocks and TIPS cheapened together in the inflation spike of 2022, equities have ‘forgotten’ that they should be priced for higher real yields…resulting in the chart below, which I call the “Real Equity Risk Premium” of expected equity returns minus TIPS real yields.
Some of you will say “that’s a trend. Let’s get on that and buy stocks.” To me, that sounds like the fellow falling out a window on the 29th floor and declaring as he passes the 6th floor ‘so far, so good.’ The point of the chart is that when you buy stocks now, you should be expecting to lose money, in real terms, over the next decade. Maybe you’ll average 3% and inflation will be 4%, for example. But TIPS will guarantee you will make 2.25% after inflation. As this spread gets more and more tilted against stocks, it gets harder and harder to explain why anyone would choose equity risk over TIPS risk, other than as a diversifier.
[1] This is not wholly unique to the UK. US 10y inflation bonds have higher real yields than linkers in Australia, Italy, Israel, Canada, France, the UK, Germany, and Spain.
[2] This is wonky stuff. If the expected forward price level doesn’t change, then the breakeven needs to go up because we are starting from lower and lower current price levels due to the (short) lag between the reporting of CPI and its realization in the carry of TIPS. If you don’t understand this because you’re not a rates strategist, don’t worry about it and take my word for it.
