Archive
Announcing USDi…Inflation-Linked Cash
As many of you know, one of my goals in life – for decades – has been to expand the inflation-linked investing ecosystem to other structures (e.g. options), other legs of the liquidity triad (e.g. cash, swaps, futures), other more-specific inflation (e.g. medical care), and in every other way I could. Barclays originally moved me into the US CPI Derivatives seat not because they thought I’d be a tremendous trader (there was nothing to trade) but because they thought I’d be a good evangelist for the product. I’d like to think they were right. Certainly, I’ve been a durable one.
Over the years, through my time at Barclays and Natixis and Enduring, I’ve developed a lot of structured products – some which traded or were issued, but a lot that died on the drawing board or for lack of customer demand – and trading/hedging methods, funds, models, etc. But nothing, I think, is as impactful as what we’re announcing today. Because what we (at USDi Partners) are announcing is likely to be considered a security, I have to be somewhat careful about how I discuss this product. So, I am just going to post the press release, and let it speak for itself for now…although I would be remiss if I did not also refer to Elizabeth Stanton’s excellent article on Bloomberg (subscription required).
***
USDi Partners Notes Launch of the USDi Coin, the First US Currency to Permanently Preserve Purchasing Power
Basking Ridge, NJ – April 15, 2025
USDi Partners today launched its first cryptocurrency project, which will allow investors to hold an asset that is permanently linked to the purchasing power a US Dollar had in December 2024.
The coin (an ERC-20 token on the Ethereum blockchain) will be available to accredited investors from market making firms that have passed USDi Partners’ AML/KYC process and are able to mint or burn the token directly. Once an investor buys a USDi coin with ‘normal’ dollars, the value of that coin will rise every day on the basis of the increase in the Not-Seasonally-Adjusted US Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers, calculated and released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is the same index on which trillions of dollars’ worth of U.S. TIPS bonds are based.
A Coin that Always Buys What a Dollar Buys Today
Holding the USDi Coin will effectively be the same as holding a dollar whose purchasing power rises as the cost of goods and services increases. If the US CPI index rises 10% from the launch date, the value of a USDi Coin will be $1.10 in terms of the current dollar, so that the investor’s purchasing power is undiminished. “The idea for USDi was inspired by the Chilean Unidad de Fomento (UF), a non-circulating currency that since 1967 has been indexed to the price level in Chile. The UF is often used as the basis for contracts in Chile, allowing counterparts to agree on terms without worrying about how inflation will change the significance of the sums exchanged,” explained Michael Ashton, Co-Founder of USDi Partners. “But, unlike the UF, the USDi Coin will actually circulate.”
The USDi Coin is collateralized by reserves that are managed by an inflation-hedging specialist to keep up with inflation in both the short- and long-term. The Coin itself, however, will not fluctuate on the basis of investment returns but will always track US CPI exactly. (Because of the public release schedule of the CPI, the value of the USDi Coin on any given day will always be known from 2-6 weeks in advance.)
The CPI index on which the USDi Coin is based is calculated according to a publicly-available handbook of methods and released publicly, along with hundreds of subcomponents and regional indices, on the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This makes it ideal for Phase 2 of the USDi project.
Finally, Medical Inflation (and Other Things) Will Be Investible
In Phase 2, the USDi Coin will become splittable, so that an owner of a USDi Coin will be able to divide it into subcomponents that track the inflation rate of individual parts of the consumption basket, and trade them separately. For example, upon the launch of Phase 2 it will be possible for the first time ever to invest in Medical Care CPI directly. This is an innovation beyond just crypto, says Andy Fately, Managing Partner and Co-Founder of USDi Partners. “What you have never been able to do before, but will when we launch Phase 2, is to buy a collateralized coin to track Medical Care or College Tuition inflation explicitly. This hasn’t even been done in the Trad Fi world, but the low frictions of the crypto world make it the ideal venue for this breakthrough.”
About USDi Partners
USDi Partners LLC was formed in mid-2024 following an off-mic discussion after recording an episode of Cents and Sensibility: the Inflation Guy Podcast. Michael Ashton asked Andy Fately and Susan Joseph, his guests on the podcast, whether anyone had created a coin that is stable in real space. The answer – no – set in motion a series of intense discussions about how best to do this in a way that was financially sound and regulatorily acceptable. USDi Partners was formed to offer and make markets in this new real-stable coin while it also expands its roster of partnered external market-makers in order to bring this innovation – and other future innovations – to the world.
###
For more information:
Andrew Fately
***@usdicoin.com
Inflation Guy’s CPI Summary (March 2025)
Before we get started on today’s CPI, let me add a few wise words from an old market observer:
- The stock market is not the economy. The stock market is the (private real economy) times (price per unit of the private real economy). When the stock market goes down, sometimes it’s because the real economy is contracting, and sometimes it’s because the price people are willing to pay to own a piece of that is declining. Often, it’s both. Furthermore, the first part of that equation is really (real economic performance) times (capital share vs labor share vs government share) The tariffs will affect corporate earnings, especially for multinationals, and in the short term for domestic firms that single-source from a foreign source. But the effect on the economy will not be dramatic, even though we will see a technical recession because of the huge swings in the trade balance in Q1 and Q2 as imports surged ahead of the tariffs. So the main thing we are seeing in equities is a multiple effect. Stocks were way overpriced, and some of that is unwinding. Bottom line: if a bear market in equities causes you serious angst or damages your long-term financial goals, you’re too long equities. If a bear market in equities causes you serious damage to your short-term financial goals, you’re too long equities. It’s okay. A bear market does not mean we are headed for a depression.
- The amount of complaining about how the Administration didn’t consult Wall Street or think about how their actions would affect big equity holders and firms is amazing and the complainers are missing the point. That isn’t a bug of the policy, and most of the country doesn’t see it as a bug. It’s the main feature. Because if you consult those guys they all would have said “yeah, go get China with a 2% tariff and of course don’t touch anyone else.” These are the same guys who freaked out when Trump slapped tariffs on China in his first term…which were obviously in retrospect way too small to matter. The experts and Wall Street mainly want to make sure no one rocks the boat. But rocking the effect here isn’t a side effect. It’s the main point.
I have a third observation, but it’s inflation-related with all the rest so I will save it for the end. Let’s get into today’s number.
Heading into the number, the general consensus was that core CPI would be generally in the range it has been, around 0.25% or so, and headline would be soft due mainly to energy that was weaker than the seasonal adjustment accounts for. This month’s CPI, though, is a sidelight in the same way that the FOMC minutes are a sidelight when something really big happens subsequent to the last meeting: it isn’t March inflation we are interested in but rather inflation over the next 3-6 months as tariffs go into effect and begin to bite. The inflation swaps curve is sharply inverted, and has gotten increasingly so over the last year, as short inflation expectations (1y, 2y, 3y) have been rising while the long end of the curve has actually come down a bit.
Actually, long-term inflation expectations have been pretty steady, even in the recent market volatility, which is one way that you know that (a) this is a market-price event and not an economy event and (b) there aren’t big liquidity issues out there like we had in the GFC. 10-year inflation breakevens have been between 2.20% and 2.30% over the last week despite the record-breaking series of large equity swings. Anyway, back to CPI.
Some people thought we might see a little hint of the first tariffs in this data. Welp, we didn’t. Headline CPI actually declined – prices fell on average (but wait for it) – by -0.05% m/m and headline inflation is only 2.41% over the last year. More surprising was that core inflation crashed lower, and was only +0.06% m/m to bring the y/y down to 2.81%. That was far below expectations.
Unfortunately, it’s here I have to tell you to hold your horses. Because when we estimate Median CPI, we don’t get even a whisper of the same effect. In fact, my early estimate has m/m median inflation the highest it has been in about a year. (This month, several regional housing subcategories are clustering around the median so my estimate of +0.35% is subject to being off by a few basis points depending on how the official seasonal adjustment affects the actual m/m increases in those subgroups, but it will not be far from +0.35%).
The fact that median doesn’t really show any of the deceleration that core does tells us that this is different from the deceleration last May/June/July, when rents had a brief but temporary lull. In March, Owners’ Equivalent Rent was +0.40% m/m, and Primary Rents +0.33% – both of which are faster than last month’s +0.28%/+0.28%. The y/y numbers are still declining but at a decelerating rate. Still right on schedule, and still zero sign of deflation in housing. Sorry!
If rents accelerated last month, how did we get a big dip in core but nothing in median? That tells you that we must have gotten large moves in low-weight categories. Which is exactly what happened.
Medicinal Drugs, -1.30% m/m (last month, +0.18%)
Used Cars and Trucks, -0.69% (last month +0.88%)
Airfares, -5.27% m/m (last month -3.99%)
Lodging Away from Home, -3.54% (last month +0.18%)
Car and Truck Rental, -2.66% (last month -1.25%)
These are, sadly, most of the ‘usual suspects’ when it comes to surprises in either direction. When they all surprise in the same direction, it means we get a core number that is way off. And that, my friends, is why we look at Median CPI. Of this list, the Used Cars one is the only one that was actually a surprise in the sense that people nowadays pay attention to that subcomponent and the private surveys anticipated an increase. I’ve written previously about what I think is happening in Medicinal Drugs, and even had a podcast episode recently to discuss it (Ep. 137: Drug Prices and the Most-Favored-Nation Clause). This is not going to continue, with 100%+ tariffs on China, where most of our Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients come from. I do wonder whether the decline in airfares (more than would be expected from jetfuel prices) and lodging away from home could partly reflect a decline in tourism to the US – both the official kind and the unofficial ‘tourism’ that has been reversing recently with the help of INS – which means it won’t soon be reversed. Not sure on that.
The net effect of these big moves in small categories is that core goods has not yet turned positive (but it will, once the tariffs go into effect, although not by a huge amount) and core services dropped sharply to 3.7% y/y from 4.1% y/y.
Supercore looks great for the first time in a while. Month/month it fell -0.24%, the sharpest decline since COVID. And the y/y dropped towards 3% as if though it was going to miss the bus if it didn’t get there soon.
Before we all get excited, I’ll point out that the three spikes on the m/m Supercore chart below were all March and April numbers. I suspect that part of what we are seeing is due to the changing placement of Easter, along with Spring Break…and if so, those parts will be unwound in the next month or two.
That doesn’t explain the sharp fall in car and truck rental prices. That is a bit of a head scratcher.
There is a little bit of bad news here, but it is away from core. Food Away from Home (which is in supercore) was behaved at +0.36% m/m vs +0.39% m/m last month, but Food at Home was +0.49% seasonally-adjusted compared with +0.01% last month. It wasn’t just Eggs, which rose less than 2% last month at the retail level and are declining at the wholesale level. Milk, Cheese, and Meats/poultry/fish all saw meaningful increases. The proletariat (of which I am one) notices these things, so if we were weighting the index by salience instead of dollars spent they would get a heavy weight. Now, there’s a reason that we take out Food and Energy…the noise generally outweighs the signal. But take administrative note of the small but noticeable acceleration in food prices on a y/y basis.
Overall, even though this was the second pleasant Core CPI surprise in a row it was also the second Core CPI surprise that shouldn’t get you very excited. In both cases, the fact that Median CPI will not echo the deceleration tells you that this is happening in the small categories that tend to mean-revert. They didn’t mean-revert this month, but I suspect they will. Unfortunately, that will happen at the same time that 10% broad tariffs, and large tariffs on Chinese goods, are kicking into effect. We might have a whopper of a Core CPI coming up here in one of the next few months.
In the broader picture, inflation is settling in the mid-to-high 3s (measured by Median CPI), but there are clouds on the immediate horizon from tariffs. But as the stability in the longer-term inflation measures suggests, the market isn’t really yet concerned that another upswing is on the way. Tariffs are a one-off effect, and a reasonably small effect overall although significant in the specific categories where they are leveed. Remember, though, that core goods, where the tariffs mainly fall, is only 19.4% of the overall consumption basket.
The longer-term picture depends on how long the uncertainty lasts. As I have pointed out before, economic policy uncertainty – which is off the charts right now – manifests itself in downward pressure on monetary velocity. I expect that the uncertainty will largely be past us in 6 months, and in the meantime the upward pressure on prices from tariffs that shows up in core goods will probably dominate the downward pressure from policy uncertainty (which causes consumers to keep more precautionary savings, causing the velocity decline). Those effects will probably wear off at roughly the same time so that we will only notice it at the micro level.
Uncertainty also, obviously, lowers the price of risky assets (I’ve also written about this!), in a healthy way. But I am not one of those people who worries that uncertainty will have a large effect on the underlying economic activity. Yes, CEOs may delay making big plans for a month or two. But the uncertainty won’t last forever, and then they’ll make their plans. CEOs who can’t make decisions under at least mild uncertainty aren’t going to be CEOs very long. The domestic economy will be just fine, especially as we continue to produce more of our internal consumption needs, domestically.
And for the Fed? The right answer to uncertainty from a policymaker perspective is to increase the hurdle for taking action. The right answer is to make no changes to policy. I am not confident that the Federal Reserve will correctly separate the ‘price of risk’ effect from the ‘economic growth’ effect. They are correct to note that tariffs by themselves are not inflationary in that they are one-off effects. If they believe that, and they think there’s a big recession coming, they’ll cut rates. That would be a mistake, especially given the uncertainty.
The Coming Surge in College Tuition Inflation
Today’s news is clearly about the imposition of new reciprocal tariffs on US trading partners, and the responses that those countries will have to the tariffs. In terms of the markets’ reactions, it does seem shocking to me that people were shocked and appear to have not been particularly well hedged…considering that the Administration has clearly been telegraphing this action for a long time. For what it’s worth, expect the countries with big surpluses to the US (they sell us a lot more than we sell them) to rapidly cut their trade barriers while countries that are closer to balanced in their flows to beat the drum more. But there is a ton of analysis out there about the tariffs, most of it informed by bad modeling, and I have already expressed my view that this is going to (a) have a smaller price impact in the US than most people are worried about, (b) may produce a technical recession simply because of all of the front-running imports we have seen in Q1-Q2, (c) will increase, not decrease, US employment, although it (d) may well result in longer recessions ex-US. Oh, and furthermore (d) will tend to result in lower global energy prices, which will help further with (a).
Today, though, I want to talk about another policy that is going to work the other way on inflation…but no one else I have seen has mentioned this yet. And that is how the sharp decrease in federal appropriations going to colleges and universities is going to lead to a sharp acceleration in tuition inflation going forward, especially if the stock market continues to decline.
To understand why, consider a simple but descriptive model of how college tuitions are set. Colleges have fairly simple income statements in aggregate: expenses are primarily labor, along with ancillary expenditures on physical plant and other expenses, while revenues consist of tuition, government funding (in the case of public institutions), and endowment earnings (primarily in the case of private institutions). For the purposes of illustration, I randomly pulled the annual report of Indiana University, from https://finance.iu.edu/doc/reports/fy2023.pdf. The tabular numbers are on page 23, but here they are graphically.
So, as I said, compensation expenses are 2/3 of the budget and revenues are half tuition, and another 20% federal grants and contracts (and a little bit from state and local). Some of the ‘auxiliary enterprises’ or ‘other revenues’ may be endowment returns, but those tend to dominate more at private institutions. Either way, Note that the Board of Trustees has no control over endowment returns or government appropriations, even if they have nominal control on some of the other levers. Also, the Trustees have very limited control, especially in the short-term, on compensation and benefits – it isn’t like you can fire your tenured professors and go get cheap ones. So, in practice, the university budget is balanced on the one number the Trustees really do control in the short run, and that is tuition.
So expenses are fairly inflexible and highly driven by inflation (since wages follow inflation). That means that tuitions also increase faster, obviously, when the general level of inflation is faster and vice versa. But on top of that, tuitions tend to increase more slowly when governments are pitching in more (or endowment returns are awesome), and more quickly when governments are pitching in less (or endowment returns are weak). Here is our model, set against an index of tuition from 4-year public universities (sourced from College Board: https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/published-prices-national , author’s calculations). The model simply uses College Board’s information on government appropriations per FTE student from the same report, along with simple equity returns, bond yields, and inflation. The little deviation at the end is interesting in itself because it happens starting at COVID, when tuitions went up less than the model would have expected. Or did they? I wrote at the time (https://inflationguy.blog/2020/09/11/summary-of-my-post-cpi-tweets-september-2020/ for example) that the BLS was assuming no quality adjustment downward despite the fact that many schools were quasi-virtual or fully virtual. That’s an issue – our model also assumes no state change in the quality of education during the COVID years – but other than that, the model worked pretty well.
The point is that a decrease in federal appropriations will result in a large increase in expected tuition inflation. The betas on our model are not helpful, because they assume a homoscedastic relationship…that is, the effect of changes in that variable (beta) does not change with the size of the change in the variable. That seems unlikely here. If federal appropriations per student drop 10%, I feel reasonably confident that we have the scale of the impact right. If they drop 50%, I suspect states will pick up some slack, tuitions will jump, schools will try to cut costs (for a change), flush more from the endowments, and take some financial lumps. But tuition would still experience a really sharp jump in that case.
For scale, consider the following table. In the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis (when admittedly endowments were also in bad shape…it turns out to be a little hard to disentangle those two highly-correlated effects), appropriations for education declined for four years in a row (red cells). Even though inflation overall during that period declined from 5% to -1.4%, and then 1.1%, 3.6%, and 1.7%, tuition inflation actually accelerated from 6.6% to 7.25% before finally decelerating a bit. In the 2013-2014 school year, when appropriations rebounded, tuition rose only 0.6% faster than headline CPI.
Now take those -4% appropriations changes and turn them to -30%. The model says that should give us something like 15% tuition inflation year/year. That seems unlikely to me, and even more unlikely the larger those appropriation declines are. Because colleges will adapt, or close. In the medium-term, the result will be higher tuitions, lower college services (what? No NIL money for the football team? No all-you-can-eat sushi?), tighter operating budgets and fewer ancillary staff. And lots of people will discover they are ancillary staff. In the short-term, it is hard to judge the scale (partly because we really don’t know how much federal aid will decrease). I am comfortable, however, with the direction. College tuition inflation is about to accelerate, and probably a lot.












