Archive
The Twin Deficits – One Out of Two IS Bad
From time to time on this blog, I circle back to the question of the balance of deficits. In my mind, as our economy goes through whatever the “Trump Transition” is, the biggest risk to the bond markets is not from some fear about whether the Treasury will default or whether the US dollar will cease to be the world’s currency of choice for reserves (neither of which I think is going to happen any time soon) but that large secular changes in the balances of savings and dollar demand could lead to outsized moves in interest rates.
First, let me remind you that the deficits are all intertwined. When the US Federal Government runs a deficit and borrows money, they have to get it from people/entities that have saved that money. One place that the government bond salesmen know they can turn to is non-US investors, who are in possession of those dollars because the US runs a large trade deficit with most other countries. When we run a trade deficit, it means we are importing more stuff than we are exporting or, equivalently, we are exporting more dollars than we are importing. Those dollars are pretty useless except to buy things that are dollar-denominated. By construction, we know that the new owners of dollars aren’t buying goods, because if they did there wouldn’t be a deficit; the main other thing they buy are securities or real property.
So if you don’t want other countries buying US stocks, buildings, and farmland, run a big trade surplus and they won’t have the dollars to do it.
It’s a good thing they have all of those dollars, because the Federal government needs them! The federal deficit needs to be funded by those foreign dollars, or by domestic savings (banks, individuals, companies, e.g.), or by the central bank buying up those bonds. And that’s pretty much it. Over time, the trade balance plus the budget balance plus the central bank balance plus private savings equals zero, more or less. During COVID, the massive expansion of the federal deficit was only possible because the Fed bought about the same number of bonds as the government sold. Had they not, interest rates would have risen precipitously because private savers would have had to be induced to put those dollars into bonds.
(Or, the government would give incentives for banks to hold more govvies, say by exempting them from the SLR. Not that such a thing would ever happen!)
Let’s pivot this then back to the Trump Transition. The stated goal of the Administration was to lower the trade deficit a lot, lower the budget deficit a lot, and lower interest rates. That all makes sense and is internally consistent. It could happen that way, if all of it happens that way.
What if, though, the President’s team makes more progress on one front than on the other? Early returns on the tariff front seem to imply that the US will face a smaller trade deficit going forward. Now, the latest spike higher (smaller deficit) here is at least partly and maybe mostly due to a ‘payback’ of the pre-tariff front-running that led to massive deficits in the prior three months. But it should not surprise us that increasing tariffs should cause the trade deficit to decline. That is, after all, sort of the point.
If we concede that the trade deficit is actually heading back towards some better semblance of balance, then that’s plank 1 of the Trump agenda. That will supply fewer dollars to cover the federal budget deficit, though. As long as the federal budget gets into something closer to balance…
That was the promise of DOGE, and of the revenues from tariffs. The latter will indeed be yuge, and will help balancing the budget. Or it would, if we weren’t about to run an even bigger deficit with the Big Beautiful Bill soon passing into law. The trailing-twelve-month budget deficit is just less than $2 trillion, which was a number we never even sniffed prior to COVID. So that’s the demand for savings: the feds look like they’re going to keep on spending more than they take in.
Unlike during COVID, too, the Fed is now letting its balance sheet shrink. No help there.
Now, there is also a movement in Congress to pass legislation preventing the Fed from paying interest on the reserves that banks hold at the Fed. For decades, the way the Fed managed the money supply was to adjust the quantity of reserves, which rationed credit and caused the price of credit (interest rates) to move as well. But it was the rationing of credit, not changing the price, that affected the money supply. Beginning with the Global Financial Crisis, the Fed flooded extra reserves into the system, forcibly deleveraging banks (look at that chart above again) – but, since that would also crush bank earnings, they started paying interest on reserves (IOR). Since, if banks were not being paid to hold reserves, they would hold as little as they could, the Fed had to pay interest or the excess of reserves in the overnight market would cause interest rates to always be zero. So the Fed started to manage the price of credit, rather than its quantity. The central bank fully intends to always hold way more in securities and therefore force way more reserves into the banks, going forward – but has gradually been reducing its portfolio securities. As I said, no help there.
If Congress succeeds in preventing the payment of IOR – and the politics on this looks good since the Fed now runs operating deficits, so that it is basically paying banks interest with taxpayer dollars (see chart below…Fed remits to the Treasury have dried up completely), then as I said above banks will try to hold fewer reserves and overnight interest rates will drop as banks compete to lend their excess reserves at anything above zero, unless (a) the fed increases the reserves banks are required to hold (really unlikely) or (b) the fed makes reserves scarce so some banks will have to buy them and some will sell them (the old way) (also really unlikely). In neither case does the Fed expand the balance sheet as a first intention, so unless we get another crisis the expansion of the Fed balance sheet is unlikely in my view.
So that leaves private savings. If the trade deficit declines and the budget balance doesn’t move significantly towards balance, then interest rates will have to rise, potentially a lot. I think the President’s stated plan makes very good economic sense. I just wonder if it’s going to be derailed by the desire to keep the Federal spend going.
Growth. Does. Not. Cause. Inflation.
I am constantly amazed at certain articles of faith among the economics community. In my line of expertise, one of the most amazing to me is the absolute conviction with which the economics community believes that if the economy grows too fast, inflation will result and if it grows too slowly, disinflation or deflation will result. That this conviction is so strongly held is especially incredible, since there is essentially no evidence for that belief.
Theory says it is so. Growing too fast puts too much pressure on land, labor, and capital, which causes their prices to rise and therefore the price of the output. I mean, obviously.
Except that it doesn’t seem to have ever happened that way, at least for a long, long time.
Heck, let’s just take recent experience. In the last twenty years, we have had two global economic crises. The upheaval in 2008 was the largest since at least the Great Depression. The economic contraction in 2020 made the Global Financial Crisis look like a piker. So obviously, if we look at inflation it must have massively slowed down in those events, right?
Hmmm. Now, I’ve showed the Core CPI price level against GDP. If you squint, you can see a small deceleration in core CPI in 2010: it actually reached only +0.6% y/y at one point. We never even reached deflation, despite the fact that the GFC was triggered by housing and housing is by far the largest component of CPI. I don’t need to say anything about the COVID period because it is so recent. Core inflation vaulted higher, and continued to do so long after economic output had been fully restored to its prior level.
The other wonderful counterexample I like to show is the 1970s.
Notice there are several flat points here, where GDP was steady-to-lower and the price level kept on truckin’ (that’s a 1970s reference, kids). Notice that since I’m using core CPI, you can’t even say ‘well, the OPEC embargo caused energy prices to spike and that also slowed the economy.’ Yes, it did, but shouldn’t that slowing of the economy have taken pressure off of other non-energy prices? Well, it didn’t. Inflation was robust during the 1970s, despite growth that lurched forward and back in fits and starts.
Those are fun, visual aids but sometimes our eyes can deceive us and hide or exaggerate a relationship that is statistically present (or not). So here I did the economist thing and ran scatterplots at different lags. Each of these shows the y/y change in GDP on the x-axis (quarterly observations, since 1960 until 2024), and y/y changes in Core CPI on the y-axis. Chart A shows the y/y changes contemporaneously (1965Q1 vs 1965Q1, e.g.). Chart B lags the inflation one quarter, so we see if this year’s growth affected this year’s inflation but lagged a little bit. Chart C lags the inflation one year, so we see if this year’s growth affects the coming year’s inflation. And Chart D lags the inflation two years, so we see if this past year’s growth affects next year’s inflation.
The correlation coefficients, for your reference: -0.18, -0.13, 0.03, 0.14. That’s thin gruel on which to make a strong argument about growth causing inflation, in my mind.
Now, I’ve run these regressions since 1960 since the core CPI index only goes back to 1957. The same regressions with headline inflation show coefficients of -0.11, -0.05, 0.10, and 0.11. I’m actually surprised they’re not any better, because energy prices should be correlated with growth and flatter the relationship. The OPEC embargo does hurt that relationship, but even if we just run these regressions since 1980 the correlations between growth and headline inflation are just 0.13, 0.19, 0.16, and -0.09.
So where do we get the idea that growth causes inflation?
Well, if I look at GDP growth versus headline inflation, from 1929 until 1960, and I exclude 1946 when industry relaxed from its war footing and war-time price controls were removed, then I can coax a really nice correlation of 0.73.
Indeed, if you look at the correlation between 1929 and 1945, it becomes a whopping 0.88. That’s science, baby – fitting the data to the story! But now I think we get to the heart of the matter because something else momentous happened in 1948 and that was the publication of the first edition of the most-used textbook in history: Paul Samuelson’s Economics. It is no surprise, perhaps, that generations of economists learned this ‘fact’ based on a correlation of 0.88…that has been falling ever since.
Since that time, the correlation between core inflation and growth has been low, and sometimes even negative, over very long periods. If there is any causal relationship, it is completely swamped in exceptions. Decades-long exceptions. It is time to give up this idea. One unfortunate consequence of that is that the way the Federal Reserve operates is as if there is one dial it can turn and that is ‘the dial that increases growth until inflation gets hot, then decreases growth.’ The problem is that isn’t one dial, it’s two. In general, I think the Fed should keep its hands off the growth dial, but if it wanted to meddle on rare occasions it would do so by manipulating medium-term interest rates. To control inflation, it needs to moderate the growth of the money supply. Frankly, in my opinion the FOMC should simply focus on the latter mission and let growth, and markets, take care of themselves. They’re not good at any of these missions anyway.
Inflation Guy’s CPI Summary (October 2024)
I said two months ago that I didn’t think the Fed should ease, but they would anyway. And they did, by cutting overnight rates 50bps. Then last month I said “Getting rates back to neutral, around 4% or so, is not a bad idea as long as quantitative tightening continues. It isn’t the best idea, but it’s not a disaster. But this raises the stakes for the next FOMC meeting… I suspect 25bps is the only choice they can make which will make almost everybody equally unhappy. There’s more data to come before that meeting, but the FOMC’s path has narrowed considerably as inflation remains sticky.” And the Fed, on cue, cut rates 25bps.
But the Fed is getting into an uncomfortable position now, because inflation looks like it has leveled off. As I have said for a while it likely would.
We will get to that. First let’s look at the number.
The economists’ consensus has been drifting higher in recent days, as data on used cars was suggesting that component would be an add in October. Consensus going in was for +0.21% headline (SA) and +0.28% on core. The actual numbers were +0.24%/+0.28%, so pretty close to the consensus with y/y headline inflation at 2.58% and y/y core at 3.30%. It doesn’t seem to me, though, that the chart of core CPI for the last year is particularly soothing. More and more it appears that May-June-July were the outliers, and we are hanging out around 0.3% per month on core inflation.
Also, my early estimate for median inflation is 0.296% m/m, leaving y/y basically unchanged at 4.09%.
Used Cars was indeed high, at +2.7% m/m. But the real problem with Used Cars isn’t this month. The real problem is that for two and a half years Used Cars has provided steady disinflation as the COVID spike (caused because new cars were not being produced as quickly thanks to supply chain problems, but the deluge of money meant that people had lots to spend and wanted cars dammit) ebbed…but that game appears to be about over.
So if you want to get inflation lower from here, it’s going to be a challenge to get it from core goods, which was steady y/y at -1% this month but only because Apparel had a large decline. Core goods is likely to head back to small deflation or small inflation (with the dollar’s recent strength, small deflation is the better guess), but higher from here. We have known this for a while. The heavy lifting is going to have to come from shelter, or supercore, going forward.
So as for shelter…OER was +0.33% m/m in September but +0.40% m/m in October. Primary Rents were +0.28% last month and +0.30% this month. The y/y disinflation is continuing, but still no sign of the hard deflation we were promised.
The good news here for 2025 is that if Trump’s plan for mass deportations happens, and if “mass” means millions, then some of the pressure on shelter that developed over the last few years as ten million additional heads needed roofs over them will abate. Then maybe we can get shelter inflation lower. There is a modest additional “if” part, though, and that is “if landlord costs can stop increasing.” Our bottom-up landlord-cost-driven model has primary rents eventually converging just south of 4%. Better, but still not great.
So that leaves supercore, which unfortunately ticked higher this month.
The problem there also remains the same. Stop me if you’ve heard this one, but wages are moving only slowly downward, and supercore is where the wage/price feedback is the strongest. The red line below is Bloomberg’s calculation of supercore and the other line is the Atlanta Fed wage growth tracker. And the problem is that median wages don’t tend to move drastically differently than median inflation, which as we have discussed is proving sticky.
If core goods is no longer declining, and shelter isn’t doing the heavy lifting of deflation, and if core-services-ex-shelter (supercore) is leveling off…then gosh, that looks a lot like high-3s-low-4s village.
As an aside: I have been saying ‘high 3s, low 4s’ would be where inflation settles in…and I’ve been saying that for a couple of years. Even I am a little amazed that I haven’t had to tweak that forecast much, other than to allow that we might briefly dip below that if housing followed the dip-and-bounce that our model had. I don’t want to put on false humility, because I was saying that inflation would stay sticky and too high long before anyone else was saying that, and I had the correct reasons and I think I’ve guided readers and clients well. But getting the landing spot right, that far in advance, also clearly involved some luck. I am saying that partly to keep the Fates on my side. But you should also know that someday, it might turn out that ‘high 3s, low 4s’ needs to be adjusted. And I’ll still consider this a pretty good call!
The Fed’s actions can clearly affect that eventual equilibrium level, but it doesn’t look like they are yet taking this seriously. The game isn’t over and there will be more CPI reports and more after that. But for now, this looks like a policy error – or worse, a blatant attempt to influence the election – and unless something unexpected happens with prices it looks like the Fed is going to have to choose between the right policy move (which means continuing tight policy) that appears to be political, or continuing to loosen policy so as to not appear to be political, and temporarily surrendering on inflation. I suspect that the FOMC will vote to keep rates steady at the next meeting.
By the way, if you care about the crypto space at all and haven’t read my column on stablecoins, you should, and you should be sure to circulate it. The column is here.
Inflation Guy’s CPI Summary (August 2024)
Let me start with the punch line, which I think will not be a very common take: this report does not stop the Fed from easing 50bps next week, and honestly doesn’t really even hurt the chances very much.
The inflation swaps market was pricing in 0.05% on an NSA basis, roughly 0.13% on a SA basis. Actually, that market was better offered, with traders either expecting a weaker number or wanting to hedge that possibility more than the chance of a stronger number. Economists gathered around a consensus of 0.16% for headline, and 0.20% on core CPI. The actual print was +0.19% m/m on CPI, and +0.28% on core CPI, bringing the y/y numbers to 2.59% and 3.27% respectively. It was the worst monthly core print since April, and the initial market response was predictably poor.
My early estimate of Median CPI for the month is +0.26% m/m, bringing the y/y median to 4.16%. (Sharp-eyed readers will note that neither headline, nor core, nor median CPI are at the Fed’s target).
Interestingly…at least, if you’re the kind of square who finds the CPI interesting…the y/y changes in Core Goods (-1.9%) and Core Services (+4.9%) were steady. That’s the first time in a while we’ve seen that.
Wow, right? A rounded +0.3% on core CPI takes the Fed out or at least puts them on a 25bps cut, right? Well, not so fast. The monthly change in Owners Equivalent Rent immediately jumps out at you (at least, if you’re the kind of square who looks at these things deeply) as +0.495% m/m. That’s the largest m/m change since February, and it hasn’t been appreciably higher on a regular basis since early last year.
That looks a little quirky, especially following the recent dip. And it looks suspiciously like a one-month-lagged chart of the m/m changes in Primary rents, which dipped a few months ago before paying it back last month.
That looks to me like some weird seasonal wrinkle. The y/y shelter figures are still declining. But, if you look carefully, you can see that the rate of improvement is slowing. And maybe my math isn’t so good but it doesn’t look like these are converging on deflation.
The rents data are therefore both the good news and the bad news. The good news is that in this month’s CPI, it was a miss higher only because OER had the quirky jump. I’ll get into more of the number in just a second, after sharing the bad news: there is nothing in the trajectory of rents to suggest that the operating theory of many forecasters for a long time – that rents would soon be in deflation – is going to happen. Heck, as I keep pointing out the trajectory of rents is higher than my bottom-up rents model, which suggested we should be bottoming out around 2.4% y/y right about now. And my forecast was on the very high side of what people were saying.
But let’s get beyond rents. The ‘big sticky’ is always important to watch, but outside of rents things looked pretty good this month. There were some outliers on both sides (Lodging Away from Home +1.75% m/m, Airfares +3.9% m/m after 5 straight declines; Car/Truck Rental -1.5% and Used Cars -1% m/m), but core CPI ex-shelter declined to only +1.72% y/y. The list of monthly categories shows a long list of categories whose price fell m/m: jewelry, car/truck rental, used cars, energy services, miscellaneous personal goods, personal care products, household furnishings and operations, medical care commodities, medical care services, recreation, communication, and a few others. Not that we are headed for deflation, but look at this distribution of y/y price changes. I haven’t shown this for a few months.
Again, this doesn’t look like something that screams deflation, but the far right tails are all moving left. There’s still a cluster around 4-5%, which shouldn’t be surprising since Median CPI is at about 4.2%. Do also notice that there aren’t a lot of categories showing deflation on a y/y basis, but if you take out shelter from this you get something that looks more disinflationary: a mode around 4-5%, but tails to the downside. In inflationary periods, the tails stretch to the upside, and we had that for a while; but the signature of the overall distribution is encouraging.
The conclusion, as I said up top, is that if the Fed was leaning towards cutting rates 50bps next week this is not a number that should change their collective mind very much. Unless the Fed cares only about the top line numbers, this isn’t an alarming report. It isn’t the lovely deflationary print that bond bulls wanted, but that wasn’t really in the cards. We’re arguing over a couple of hundredths in the monthly core print, and that is entirely attributable – still – to shelter. In fact, there are signs of broadening disinflation. To be clear, I personally do not think the FOMC should stop quantitative tightening and there’s no hurry to cut rates. The fight against inflation is not only unfinished, it won’t be finished for quite a while…and an ease now will just make it harder later. But that’s what I would do. What I am saying is that the Fed is not likely to change course on the basis of this number.
The y/y figures for headline CPI are going to keep dropping for a few months here, partly on base effects and partly because energy prices are very weak. A perfectly reasonable trajectory for monetary policy (if you think that rates ought to at least be eased back to neutral in the 3-4% range) would be 25bps next week, and then larger cuts in a few months when the headline inflation number is lower and the unemployment rate is higher. The only problem with that approach is that an acceleration in the pace of easing later may look like concern, which is why some FOMC members favor getting out of the gate quickly. As I said, there’s nothing here that should stop that.
But median inflation is still headed for ‘high 3s, low 4s,’ with a potential dip into the low 3s before a reacceleration. The hard work on inflation is still ahead, and it is going to get harder now that we are in a recession.
A Price-Linked USD
Let me introduce you, for those who aren’t already acquainted, to the Unidad de Fomento.
The Unidad de Fomento (UF) is an almost-unique currency in the world.[1] It was established in 1967 by Chile as a non-circulating currency – I will get to that in a minute – and has survived a period of hyperinflation and a rebasing of the circulating Chilean currency from Escudos to Chilean Pesos in 1975. That is an amazing testimony.
What is unique about the UF is that it is directly indexed to the price level. The value of the UF increases (or in theory decreases) every day with the inflation index. This means that unlike the actual circulating currency, the UF maintains its purchasing power over time. If you could buy a physical UF, it would be like buying a 1967 Chilean peso. As long as you hold it, you will be able to buy exactly as much actual stuff as you could have in 1967, or for that matter last year. If you put enough UF in your pocket to buy an empanada when the price of an empanada was 1,000 pesos, then when you take it out of your pocket you should still be able to buy an empanada no matter what the price of an empanada is today.[2]
Every day, what is changing is the exchange rate between 1967 pesos and ‘today’ pesos, and the only part of that which is changing is the price level. That is, after all, exactly what a price level means. It means snapshotting the value of this basket of goods and services in, say, 1983 (as for the CPI) and then telling you what roughly the same basket of goods and services (allowing for changes in the consumption basket over time) would cost today. So the NSA CPI today at 314.54 means that if the consumption basket cost $100 in 1983, today the same basket would cost $314.54. Except that if we had a UF for the dollar, we would simply say the basket cost 100 UF$ in 1983 and 100 UF$ in 2024. That’s powerful.
I noted that the Chilean UF is a non-circulating currency. Then what good is it if you can’t actually buy goods and services with it?
The purpose of the UF was to facilitate contracts and wage agreements in a period of inflation uncertainty. When the future price level is unknown, negotiating longer-term agreements becomes more difficult. Consider a labor union negotiating a multi-year labor contract. The union, who is contracting to provide labor at certain future prices, will want larger increases to protect itself from the possibility that those future wages are eroded by higher-than-expected inflation. Management, on the other hand, wants lower increases because agreeing to larger increases if inflation is lower than expected will make its cost structure less competitive. For a short-term contract, the risk on both sides is low. But the longer the term of the contract, the more the risks grow for both sides and the harder it will be to reach an agreement. Where this manifests is that in low and stable inflation regimes, contracts tend to have longer tenors; in high and unstable inflation regimes, contracts tend to have very short tenors or to be completely untenable.
This is the problem that UF solves. The parties to a negotiation no longer have to protect their nominal wages and prices. They have offsetting risks to inflation, so they agree to real wage increases or price escalations by negotiating not in Chilean Pesos but in UF. Then, as time passes, those agreed-upon UF amounts are translated at the then-current exchange rate between UF and Chilean Pesos – reflecting the change in the price level that has actually occurred.
There are many salutatory effects to this. Suddenly, the need to get ahead of wage and price increases and negotiate larger increases to protect against inflation vanishes – and, with it, the feedback loop where higher wages induce higher prices, which in turn induce higher wages. (As I’ve discussed previously here, that doesn’t necessarily accelerate inflation, but it makes inflation much stickier going down than it is going up.)
Why am I mentioning this?
We do not have anything like this in the United States at this point. We have CPI, and companies do negotiate contracts on the basis of CPI. Longer-term construction contracts, such as for power plants or airplanes, often have escalators tied to particular price indices. Frankly, the ability to base a contract on a non-circulating currency is not itself something that is necessary in the USA today[3] although in 1967 in Chile it was. However it has escaped no one’s notice that over time, our currency is a medium of exchange but becomes less and less a good store of value when inflation moves away from the zero bound. Obviously, there are investment products which help address this issue but to the extent that there are any cash balances, higher inflation implies higher monetary velocity partly because the money itself becomes a worse and worse store of value.
One solution to this would be inflation-linked savings accounts, which don’t exist (although I’ve tried to convince people to do that!) Another solution would be to have a currency – a circulating currency – which you could hold which would keep up with inflation. Such a currency would be superior to USD, because it would be USD preserving the purchasing power of the base year.
Why don’t we have such a thing? Well, the US has a monopoly on issuance of its currency, and every time they issue more it is a pure gain to the government, called seigniorage. But that’s not really the reason, because the government would also earn seigniorage on “USDUF.” The real reason is that the USD is a successful fiat currency because, and only because, everyone believes that everyone else will accept it as worth $1. Any new currency, if unbacked, would have to generate trust anew that everyone else would accept the USDUF-USD exchange rate to be equal to the price level. Unless the US government guaranteed that exchange rate by freely exchanging dollars for USDUF on demand, there is no guarantee that USDUF would trade at the appropriate level.
I don’t see the government doing this any time soon. But it really should.
[1] In 2001, Bolivia established a similar currency, the Unidad de Fomento Vivienda, which is based on the same mechanism but is not as widely used as the Chilean UF due to the latter’s long head start.
[2] I am taking some liberties for the sake of illustration. Obviously some goods keep up with the price index, some run ahead and some fall behind…it’s really only true that the value of the UF is constant in terms of the overall consumption basket, not each specific item.
[3] …although having historical financial statements and financial projections in real terms instead of nominal terms, using real discount rates instead of nominal rates, would make a ton of sense and you can show that corporate finance in real space is more efficient and more sensible if there’s any volatility in inflation.
‘Threading the Needle’ Without Vision…or a Needle
From time to time, you will read that the Federal Reserve is trying to “thread the needle” on rates. That is, they don’t want to keep rates too high for too long, lest they sink the economy, nor lower them too soon or too far, lest they reignite (or merely fail to finish off) inflation.
To me, that is a very odd use of the phrase. “Threading the needle” tends to describe a delicate operation that must be conducted with deft precision, since a small error represents a failure. Not to put too fine a point on it (Ha! Ha! Needle pun), but that seems as wholly unlike the problem the Fed is confronting, and the characteristics of the error function.
Let’s think way, way back to 2022 when the Fed began hiking rates aggressively.
The Fed’s first 475bps of rate hikes corresponded with a rise in median inflation from 4.56% to 6.94%, over a period of more than a year, along with accelerating economic growth. The next 50bps must have been the magic number, because Median CPI has dropped 2.6% since March of 2023 and growth has slowed a bit.
Some of this – if you believe that changes in overnight interest rates have an important impact on inflation – might be written off to lags. But historically, the correlation of changes in interest rates with changes in core inflation 12 months later is approximately zero (as I illustrated in this nifty article almost exactly a year ago: Enough With Interest Rates Already).
How is it reasonable to worry about ‘threading the needle’ when the economy does not evidently respond to 50bps, 100bps, or 200bps of rate hikes? Methinks that this is not an apt metaphor.
Part of the problem is that the FOMC doesn’t really know what the target looks like that it is trying to hit. If you fervently believe that interest rates matter, but you don’t know what the lags are or the significance to the economy of 25bps, then how can you be confident that you have the precise control implied by ‘threading the needle?’ Fed speakers have admitted, although they don’t phrase it this way, that they don’t have much control over any of the variables that determine whether or not the target is hit. They’ve specifically noted that monetary policy is not efficacious in bringing down energy prices or moderating food prices, and some have opined that the rapid rate increases might have artificially increased shelter inflation by restricting the supply of homes on offer thanks to trapped mortgagees. Did the Fed rate hikes cause Used Car prices – one of the largest sources of the disinflation to date – to drop precipitously? It seems unlikely.
To thread a needle, you need fine motor control and the Fed doesn’t have it. It was difficult to even get inflation headed in the right direction, and it didn’t happen because of what the Fed did. If monetary policy makers looked at their record objectively, they would have to admit that microadjustments in a policy rate that directly affects very little of the economy do not seem to have much efficacy. If that is true, then the correct policy response is to do nothing unless you are absolutely certain that the direction you need to move policy is unambiguous, and the magnitude you need to adjust policy is substantial. Otherwise, you’re just adding unnecessary volatility to markets.
One thing you learn as a trader is that most of your money is made on very few trades, and so if you are trading frequently the majority of your trading is just noise. Similarly, for most investors it is more important to get the position scaled for proper risk rather than to choose the ‘right’ securities. The odds that you have chosen the best-performing stocks, if you choose just (say) three, are vanishingly small. Market prices may not be completely efficient, but they’re too efficient for most people to beat on a regular basis. Similarly, the Fed ought to make few moves. Most of its activity is just noise…at best. The market is pretty good at moving interest rates to where supply and demand balance, when it is left alone, and market interest rates have a better forecasting record than the Fed by quite a lot. Stop trying to thread the needle.
Inflation Guy’s CPI Summary (Mar 2024)
After a week when the NY/NJ area saw an earthquake, an eclipse, and a gorgeous 75-degree spring day, it is time to get back to work.
Today’s CPI report was not expected to be particularly great. In fact, one of the biggest conundrums of market behavior recently has been the question of why investors seemed to remain very confident that the Fed will cut rates several times this year, even as forecasts for the path of inflation have backed off of what they were last year (when most forecasters had core CPI returning placidly and obediently to the neighborhood of 2% this year). The a priori consensus forecasts for today’s CPI figure were +0.28% m/m on core and +0.33% m/m on headline. The Kalshi market was in line with that, although CPI swaps were a touch lower on headline at +0.29% (seasonally adjusted, but CPI swaps trade NSA CPI). That’s not wonderful: 0.28% on core would annualize to 3.4% y/y.
The assumption has been that even if in March we are annualizing to 3.4%, the coming deceleration in rents will push everything back down to where it needs to be. The problem with this has always been (a) the strongly-held belief that rents would slip into deflation this year were never based on good analysis, and more importantly (b) this assumed that nothing unforeseen would happen in the other direction. It is characteristic of inflationary periods, of course, that bad things happen on the upside. So this was always sort of assuming a can opener,[1] but at least forecasts for the current data were reflecting that these things had not happened yet. To be fair, the consensus on core has been low relative to the actual print for four months in a row, but at least folks are forecasting mid-3s, rather than 2.0.
Now, let’s review one other thing before we look at some charts. The recent story boils down to this: sticky rents, sticky wages. While core goods has been pulling down core inflation, that game was running out of room. The next part of core deceleration relies on un-sticking the sticky rents, and sticky wages.
So here we are. Today’s figure +0.36% on core CPI, +0.38% on headline (seasonally adjusted on both). This makes the last 3 core CPIs 0.39%, 0.36%, and 0.36%. The chart below of the m/m core CPI figures does not really give the impression of a decelerating trend.
We always look these days first at rents, because that is so important to the disinflation story. Rent of Primary Residence was +0.41% m/m, down from 0.46% last month. Owners’ Equivalent Rent was steady, at +0.44%. Remember that there had been some alarm two months ago, when OER for January jumped to 0.56%, that this was due to a new survey method or coverage and it was going to be repeated going forward. That was always pretty unlikely, but now we have had two months basically back at the old level and the January figure appears to be an outlier. 0.41% on Primary and 0.44% on OER is not hot, just sticky. It isn’t going up; it’s just not going down very fast.
Rents will continue to decline. But the failure of rents to slip into deflation is a source…maybe the source…of the big forecast error made by economists about 2024 CPI. Our cost-based model for primary rents, which never got even vaguely close to deflation, has now definitively hooked higher with the low coming in November. Rents haven’t been decelerating as fast as our model had them, but if anything that’s a source for concern on the high side.
Outside of rents, core inflation ex-housing rose to 2.38% y/y. That sounds like “most of the economy is on target,” but that’s not how inflation works. There’s a distribution, and if the ‘rents’ part of the distribution is going to be higher than the target then everything else needs to average something below the target. We aren’t there. And, as I noted above, we’ve squeezed out just about everything we can from core goods. Actually, y/y core goods dropped to -0.7% thanks partly to continued declines in Used Cars (-1.1% m/m) and some decline this month in New Cars (-0.2%). I think the latter might partially reflect discounts on the EV part of the fleet, where cars for sale have been piling up as manufacturers under political pressure have been producing far more of them than people want.
Note that core services, even with the decline in y/y rents, moved higher this month to 5.4% from 5.2% y/y. Some of that was medical care, which was +0.49% m/m driven by another jump (+0.98% m/m) in Hospital Services. The y/y rise in Hospital Services is now up to 7.55% – the highest since October 2010.
Partly driven by hospital services, the ‘super core’ (core services ex-rents) continues to re-accelerate.
Again, this is not what the Fed wanted to see; and it’s driven partly by the stickiness in wages. The Atlanta Fed’s Wage Growth Tracker has decelerated but is still at 5.0% y/y. That’s not the stuff that 2% core inflation is made of.
Let’s take one moment to look at a piece of good news from the report. My estimate of median CPI, which is my forecast variable because it is not subject to outliers like Core CPI, is +0.32% for this month. Because I have to estimate seasonals for the regional housing numbers, actual Median might be a teensy bit higher or lower but in any event the chart of Median CPI is much less alarming than the chart of Core CPI.
I should observe that the news there is not completely good, since a signature of inflationary environments is that tails are to the upside – that is, core is persistently above median. That was true during the upswing, but during the moderation core has gone back below median. But this bears watching, and if core starts to routinely print above median it will be a negative sign. For now, though, the Median CPI is good news. Relatively.
So let’s talk policy.
The Administration always seems to be confused about why, despite strong jobs numbers, consumers consistently report dissatisfaction with the economic situation. There really shouldn’t be any confusion. Consumers, especially those not in the upper classes, hate taxes. And in addition to a high direct take from the government in explicit taxes, consumers are also facing persistent inflation that the Administration says isn’t there. Inflation is a tax, and it sucks worse than direct taxation because you can’t rearrange your consumption very well to avoid it. (You can rearrange your investment portfolio, but a strikingly small number of people seem to have actually done that even three years into this inflation episode. If you’re curious about how, you really should visit Enduring Investments and ask.)
On the other question of policy, and that’s the Fed: I can’t see any rational argument for cutting rates in June. Actually, on the data we have in hand I can’t see an argument for cutting rates in 2024, except for the one the Fed doesn’t consider and that’s that interest rates don’t affect inflation. To cut the overnight rate, the Fed would have to rely on forecasts that inflation is going to get better. And to do that now, when forecasts have been persistently wrong (and not by just a little bit but about the whole trajectory) since 2020, would be incredibly cavalier. The FOMC still consists of human beings, so never say never. And the inflation data should improve as the year goes along and rents moderate. I just don’t see any sign that it’s going to moderate enough to say ‘we’ve reached price stability.’ Sticky in the high-3s, low-4s is still where I think we’re coming out of this.
[1] A physicist, an engineer, and an economist are stranded on the desert island with nothing but a crate of canned food. “How are we going to get the food that is inside of these cans?” asked one. The physicist says “well, we could heat the cans, carefully, in a crucible we make from ocean clays. Eventually the heat will cause the can to burst and we can get the food inside.” The engineer says “that will take too long. What we need to do is take some of these coconuts, raise them up to a great height with a series of ropes I will design, and allow them to smash down onto the cans, breaking them open.” The economist says “I have a solution that is far easier than what you fellows are doing. Here is how we do this. First, assume a can opener….”
Changing the Fed’s Target – FAIT non-accompli?
As the steadier measures of inflation (core, median, or sticky depending on your preferences) have started to overshoot expectations slightly – the y/y measures continue to decline, but slower than expected as the m/m numbers have surprised on the high side – the markets have continued to price Fed policy becoming increasingly easier over the course of 2024 and into 2025. While Fed officials continue to push back gently on this assumption, it seems that most of the FOMC is comfortable with the idea that there will be at least some decrease in overnight rates later in the year and the only question is how much.
While inflation has not been settling gently back to target, there have developed two big holes in the narrative that the Fed was depending on. First, there is no reason to think that rent of shelter is going to cross over into deflation, either in 2024 or any time in the future. The belief that the CPI for rents would follow the high-frequency data into deflation was never well-founded, despite some fancy-looking papers that claimed you could get three pounds of fertilizer out of a one-pound bag if you just squeezed it the right way (I discussed “Disentangling Rent Index Differences: Data, Methods, and Scope”, and why it wasn’t going to tell us anything we didn’t already know, in my podcast last July entitled “Inflation Folk Remedies”), and while rents are declining they are not plunging, and home prices themselves have turned back higher and are growing faster than inflation again.
Second, core-services-ex-rents (so-called ‘supercore’) inflation needed to see wages decelerate a lot in order for that piece to get back towards target. They haven’t, and it hasn’t.
This isn’t to say that these things may not eventually happen, but so far the expectation that we would get back to target sustainably by the middle of 2024 looks quite unlikely. Why, then, are people talking about when the first eases will happen? The only way that it makes sense to do so is if the goal to get inflation back to 2% sustainably is no longer driving policy.
This has led to some observers pointing out that the Fed doesn’t actually have a 2% target any longer. In 2019, the Fed moved to Flexible Average Inflation Targeting, or FAIT. Under this rubric, the Fed doesn’t need to regard 2% (or about 2.25% on CPI) as a target that they need to hit at a moment in time but only as an average over some period of time. This obviates the need for overly-aggressive monetary policy in either direction, such as the instantaneous adjustment linked directly to the inflation-miss that is required by the Taylor Rule.
Unfortunately, under that rule the Fed has little if any chance of meeting its mandate. It would have a better chance of hitting 2% in…um…let’s say a ‘transitory’ way, as rental inflation swings lower and we pass close to the target briefly before inflation goes back up to its new equilibrium level. Back in August 2021 I noted that the Fed was already above the FAIT projected from the announcement of that policy, and in fact had used up all of the post-GFC slack. Obviously, it has gotten worse since then. Below, I update the two charts from that article. The first chart shows the CPI from August 2019, along with the average-inflation-targeting line and the forwards suggested by the CPI swap market (showing where inflation futures would be trading, if they were trading).
The second chart shows the CPI back to January 2013. We’ve made up all of the inflation from the post-GFC deflation scare, and then some.
Note that the inflation swap market is not indicating any expectation that prices will return back to the trendline. The market is acting as if the Fed is still operating under the old rules, where the goal was to get inflation to be stable at 2% from here, wherever “here” is. This means one of four things will have to happen, or it implies a fifth thing.
- The Fed needs to re-base its FAIT to start from the current price level. In that case, the red CPI-plus-2.25% line will shift abruptly upward but then will parallel the inflation implied by the inflation market; or
- The Fed can keep the original base, but concede that the actual target now is 3% (about 3.25% on CPI), which means that if the inflation market is right then it should be back on target by late 2029 (see chart); or
- The Fed can dedicate itself to fighting inflation for much longer, and publicly disavow the notion of reducing interest rates in the next few years. If CPI went completely flat then the Fed would be back on the line by sometime in 2028.
- The Fed can abandon FAIT, because it has become inconvenient, and validate the inflation market’s assessment that the Committee would be happy with 2% from here, not on average.
If none of these things happens, and the Fed then implies that the inflation market is going to permanently imply something different from what the Fed claims to be its modus operandi. In that case, it would be very hard to argue that the central bank had not lost credibility, wouldn’t it?
Four Quick Thoughts on Fed Day
Four fairly quick observations on this Federal Reserve meeting day, not all of which have anything to do with the Fed:
1. The FOMC today announced unchanged policy for now on the overnight interest rate, on the pace of QT runoff, and on the collective expectation of the Committee for the number of rate-cuts in 2024 (three, 25bp cuts). But it beats noting that while three cuts is the median expectation, the mean expectation dropped substantially. Only one official sees four rate cuts in 2024, compared to five who saw that many or more, as of the December survey. Those four folks moved to ‘three’, and one of the ‘three’ folks moved to ‘just one.’ Nine of the nineteen dots are for fewer than three cuts this year, so we should say this is a closer call than the market seems to think.
2. The longer dot plots also show some increase in Committee members’ expectations for the neutral short-term interest rate (the so-called ‘r-star’ originally popularized, I think, by Greenspan). The significance of this for investors and traders is that the overnight rate is unlikely to go back to zero unless we get another enormous calamity; the significance for the economy is essentially nil since it is money, and not interest rates, that matter. I’ve written before about why there are good reasons to think of something like 2-2.25% as the neutral long-run real rate, and so if CPI inflation is expected to be 2.25%-2.5% then something around 4.5% is neutral long-run nominal rate. We are mighty close to that now, so there is no compelling reason to think that interest rates should decline markedly from here. At the short end of the curve, we should eventually be lower – but we need to also keep in mind the growing imbalance in the supply and demand for Treasury paper, which (in the absence of recession) will tend to keep rates on government paper higher than they otherwise would be in equilibrium – and as one consequence, by the way, credit spreads will tend to be lower than they otherwise would be for a given level of creditworthiness.
3. The Fed clearly believes that the situation in Commercial Real Estate (CRE) and its effect on the banking sector is manageable. If they didn’t think so, then they would be hastening to lower rates to ease the refinancing problems that are hitting that sector. I have been reading alarmist analyses saying that the $1 trillion in CRE mortgage maturities due this year will lead to ‘hundreds’ of bank failures. This falls into the Big Number is Bad and Scary school of analysis. One trillion is a lot of mortgages and that will cripple banking! Except…
Let’s suppose that 20% of those mortgages go into default – a number more massive than we’ve ever seen before – and that recovery is 80%. For reference, in the 2008-09 crisis CRE values fell by about 36% according to the Greenstreet Commercial Property Price Index (chart below), and that was against a backdrop of 1%ish inflation. The nominal price decline should be less in an environment where underlying inflation is 4% per year, naturally. Since the CRE peak, real values have fallen 31% but nominal values only about 21% on the basis of that index. But the drop from the peak isn’t the relevant part. Even the shorter loans now coming due were struck 3-5 years ago, and the drop from that level is only about 9%. Plus, the initial loan-to-value levels were not 100%. So (and all of this is just to cuff a rough estimate) a 20% loss when selling out the collateral on a defaulted mortgage seems conservative.
Those numbers mean the $1T in mortgage maturities could produce a loss of $40bln (1,000 * 0.2 * 0.2). That’s still a big number, but remember that it is spread over a lot of banks. Suppose that it is spread over only 2,000 banks, and that the losses have nothing to do with bank size. Then you are looking at losses per bank of $20mm. That’s bad for a small bank, but the losses at a small bank will of course be smaller because they have smaller books. Will that sink ‘hundreds of banks’? Only if they are small, fairly insignificant banks.
Will some banks fail because they lent too much against commercial real estate which has fallen in value, at too-high loan-to-value ratios, and end up owning property that they can’t sell? Almost certainly. But after negotiations and forbearances and the eventual foreclosures – in an environment where the price level is rising 4% per year – I just don’t think this is something we should worry about. To be fair, the fact that the Fed is not worried about it is something that makes me worry about it.
4. I have been befuddled recently because airfare prices in the CPI have been higher than would be anticipated given the movement in jet fuel prices. Belatedly, I think I know what is going on. The issues with Boeing planes has meant that (and I didn’t know this) Boeing has greatly reduced its deliveries to airline companies as they sort out the problems with their Max jets. I became aware of this only recently when a Bloomberg story highlighted how Southwest Airlines is cutting capacity and freezing hiring because they aren’t getting the planes they need. Steady demand and constraints on supply means higher airfares, as I also discovered this week when I was booking a flight to Chicago. Yikes! With jet fuel prices also rising again, this is something to factor into CPI forecasts going forward. It’s surely ‘transitory,’ but it takes a long time to build a plane and in the near-term this is more likely to be solved on the demand side if we have a recession, than on the supply side with a sudden influx of planes.
Rising Mortgage Origination Hints at M2 Turn
One of the successes the Federal Reserve can tout from the last couple of years (and the list of them is pretty short, to be fair) is that after the unprecedented policy actions during COVID caused never-before-seen rates of money supply expansion, subsequent policy avoided normalizing that explosion.
Year over year growth in M2 reached 26.9%. But in 2022, as the Fed started hiking rates and shrinking its balance sheet, the rate of growth slowed until M2 reached its absolute peak in July 2022 and began to slowly decline. As of today’s H6 release, year-over-year M2 has been negative for 13 months in a row.
To be sure, after a massive explosion the level of M2 has not declined all that far as the chart below shows. I also documented this fact back in November in “Where Inflation Stands in the Cycle,” which was really a good piece. You should read it.
So the success of the Fed here can be summarized by saying, ‘at least they didn’t keep blowing up the money supply.’ Since the rise in prices is clearly and closely related to the explosion in the quantity of money we have seen (anyone who still resists this obvious truism after the mountain of recent evidence is added to the prior mountain of evidence), this was a sine qua non for getting inflation back down. It isn’t sufficient, unless it’s continued for a very long time, but it’s necessary. As I illustrated in that article linked to above (which, really, you should read), there are several ways that inflation could evolve from here as the shock to the system gradually unwinds. I’ve talked before about how velocity in the policy crisis behaved as a spring or a capacitor, absorbing a lot of ‘monetary energy’ that is doomed to be released back into the system. Velocity is still rebounding (in Q4, if forecasts for Thursday’s Advance GDP report are accurate, it will rise something like 4% annualized), but if money growth remains negative then that’s really the least-painful way this can resolve. In the last chart from that prior article (have I mentioned it’s worth reading?), slack money growth with decent growth and rebounding velocity is reflected in a movement mostly to the left, with the price level not rising much. Good outcome.
However, that outcome is predicated on the notion that the money supply remains slack. If M2 starts to rise again, then the curve drifts upward and the potential set of outcomes almost certainly involve higher prices. Naturally, I’m mentioning this because of developments that make me concerned on this score.
One thing that I seriously missed in 2022 was the fact that the increase in interest rates helped bring down money supply growth. That’s not at all intuitive, because in general changing the price of a loan tends not to change the demand for a loan by very much – especially when higher inflation is making the spot real interest rate paid by the borrower lower and lower. In other words, I assert with some decent evidence that consumer and industrial loan demand is somewhat inelastic for modest changes in interest rates. Ergo, my belief was that merely raising interest rates would not necessarily cause money growth to decelerate. As it happened, I was saved from my own mistake by the fact that the Fed was also shrinking the balance sheet, which (despite the fact that reserve balances aren’t binding on banks in the current environment, so they are essentially unconstrained in lending) I thought might help money growth to decelerate. Not that I thought we’d keep getting 20% growth, but I didn’t think we would have naturally seen money growth fall below, say, 5%. Fortunately, because the Fed was also shrinking the balance sheet my forecasts were not drastically inaccurate despite being wrongly inspired, and so I forecast 5.1% median inflation for 2023 and we got 5.06%. It’s nice when the ball actually bounces your way.
As it happens, though, for the most part higher interest rates seem to have not affected loan growth very much. C&I loan growth remained strong throughout 2022 and didn’t start to level off until the Fed was just about through tightening, and consumer loans as I expected really only started to level off when the Unemployment Rate started to rise…credit cards, not at all. And that’s because, as I said, most borrowers are not borrowing because they made a NPV calculation that said borrowing makes sense; they’re borrowing because they need to and 1% or 2% or 3% doesn’t really change that calculus very much.
But you know where it did change the calculus a lot? In mortgages. And that’s because a buyer might be reluctant to pay 1% more on a mortgage, but what the buyer also needs is someone who is willing to abandon their awesome loan. As has been noted elsewhere by lots of people, home sales absolutely cratered not because people weren’t wanting to buy but because there weren’t enough people who wanted to sell. So mortgage origination volumes also dried up, as a direct consequence of higher rates. The one large market where interest rates did have a big impact, although not for the reason you’d think, was in mortgages!
You know I wouldn’t say this unless I had a neat chart to show you. Here is the Mortgage Bankers’ Association Purchase index, tracking the volume of new loans for purchasing a home (in black), set against y/y money supply growth, in blue.
Let’s tie this up with a bow:
- Higher rates didn’t affect every kind of loan, but had a big impact on turnover, and thus origination, in one very large loan market: mortgages.
- Lower mortgage origination turns out to have been uncannily correlated with money supply growth. This may or may not be causal, but it at least means that mortgage origination merits consideration as a leading indicator of money supply growth.
- As interest rates have leveled off and even declined some, the housing market is gradually adjusting. We are seeing higher home prices, and mortgage origination has been showing signs of recovering as the chart shows (mortgage origination numbers are released before sales numbers, so expect a rise in home sales coming).
- It is going to be difficult for the Fed to keep the money supply shrinking, if origination of new mortgages rises even a little bit. This doesn’t mean M2 is going to skyrocket, just that it is going to stop shrinking (in fact, it has risen each of the last two months).
- If M2 rises at even a sober 5% pace, combined with money velocity that still has some normalization left, it will be extremely difficult for the Fed to hit its inflation target on a sustainable basis for some time.
And what should you do about it, just in case? For starters, read “Inflation Sherpa.”
