Archive
Bounce in Money Growth is Good News and Bad News
The monthly money supply numbers are out. I have bad news and good news.
The bad news is that the contraction in the money supply appears to be over. That’s not bad news per se (see below), but it’s bad in that the anti-inflationary work that was happening is coming to an end before it’s quite finished. Although I would be reluctant to annualize any one month’s change in M2, the $92bln increase in M2 in March was the largest increase since 2021. It only annualizes to 5.5%, so it isn’t exactly running away from us – but it’s positive. The 3-month and 6-month changes are also positive, and the highest since early 2022 in each case. Again, we’re only 0.72% above the ding-dong lows of last October, but the sign is now positive.
With the money supply figures now in, and with the advance Q1 GDP report due this week, we can revisit our chart of “how much more inflation ‘potential energy’ remains.” (see “Where Inflation Stands in the Cycle,” November 2023). As that article (and this chart) illustrates, if M2 doesn’t go down then this gets more difficult. M2 in Q1 rose at a 1.24% annualized rate over Q4. GDP is expected to rise 2.5% annualized. So M/Q…barely moves, as the chart shows.
We will eventually get back to the line, unless velocity is permanently impaired. Despite all of the crazy people who told you it was, there’s no evidence of that. M2 velocity will rise about 1% (not annualized), if the GDP forecasts are on point. That will be the smallest q/q change in several years, and velocity will be getting very close to the 2020Q1 dropping-off point. But there frankly is no reason for velocity to stop there; higher interest rates imply higher money velocity. However, we are getting close.
(Incidentally, if you’re curious how we can be almost back to the dropping-off point of velocity and yet still be 5% below the line in the first chart above, it’s because I’m using core inflation. With food and energy, we’re a little closer to the line and have used up more of the ‘potential energy.’ But food and energy are of course volatile and so while a good spike in energy prices would look like we’ve used up all of the potential energy, that could just be a one-off effect.)
Either way, we aren’t too far away from getting back to home base and that’s good news. Yes, prices by the time we are done will have risen 25% since the end of 2019, and that can’t really be characterized as a ‘win.’ Let’s go Brandon. But we are getting closer.
The good news about the new rise in M2 is that it’s timely. Markets and the economy were starting to show signs of money getting a little tight; losing a little lubrication in the machinery. An economy does need money to run, and while the only way we can get back to the old price level is to have money supply continue to decrease, that’s also a painful process. In the long run, we would have price stability if the change in M was approximately equal to the change in GDP. If we want 2% inflation, then we need M to grow about 2% faster than GDP. Vacillating velocity means that it isn’t purely mechanical like that – the steady decline in velocity since 1997 is the only reason that inflation stayed tame despite too-fast money growth over that period – but the long downtrend in velocity is likely finished since the long decline in rates is finished. Thus, if we get money supply growth back to the neighborhood of 4%, we can get our 2-2.5% growth with restrained inflation over time.
I am not super optimistic that all of that will work out so nice and cleanly like we draw it up on the chalkboard, but I am more optimistic about it than I was two years ago. We still have some sticky inflation ahead of us, but if the Fed keeps reducing its balance sheet then eventually we will get inflation below the sticky zone and back towards ‘target’ (even though there isn’t a target per se any more).
Where Inflation Stands in the Cycle
It’s important, I think, that I occasionally remind readers of a fact that is supported by overwhelming quantitative evidence, and yet virtually ignored by a wide majority of economists (and central bankers): inflation is a consequence of the stock of money growing faster than real economic growth. Period.
MV=PQ
That doesn’t mean that forecasting inflation is easy if we remember that fact, but at least we can make good directional predictions when, say, the stock of money rises 25% in a year, instead of mouthing some nonsense about inflation in such a case being “transitory.”
However, I realize that when someone mentions that equation a lot of people tune out, thinking this has become a religious argument between monetarists and Keynesians. So let me toss out some data. Keep in mind, there is measurement error in statistics for the money supply, real GDP (especially), and prices. And, as I’ve written before, sharp changes in M can cause a short-term impact on velocity until Q and P can catch up – my ‘trailer attached by a spring’ analogy. But over time, a shock move in velocity becomes less important (and reverses, which is what we are in the middle of), and so we would expect by simple algebra to see that a good prediction of the change in the price level is given by M/Q. Is it?
First let me share one of my favorite charts from a Federal Reserve Economic Review.[1] I’ve been using this for years.
This is over 5-year periods, and you can see that there’s a pretty good correlation – especially for large changes – in the change in the ratio of money/income and the change in prices. (By the way, the original article is still worth reading).
Here is another chart from that note, updated by me through the end of 2022.
The fact that the price level has gone up a little bit less than the ratio of money to GDP over time is a reflection of the fact that money velocity has gone down slightly, and then more quickly, over the last 110 years. If you think velocity will fully revert, then the blue line will eventually converge with the red line – but in my mind there’s no reason to believe that velocity is stable or entirely mean-reverting over time…only that it doesn’t permanently trend higher or lower like money, prices, and GDP do.
Obviously, this leads us to the question of where we are now. Here is a chart of the change in headline prices (CPI) as a function of the change in M/Q for five countries/regions.
The chart basically says that the UK and EU have seen prices move almost exactly what you would have predicted, if you could have known in advance what M and Q were going to do. Naturally, none of us knew that. Japan, the US, and Canada haven’t seen prices rise as much as you would have expected, yet. Some of the reason why not is the effect I mentioned earlier: the dump of money into accounts during COVID was so fast that there was no time for prices to adjust. Actually, it’s only this close because food and energy adjust more rapidly…if you look at the picture with just core inflation, it appears there’s still some lifting to do to get back to the 45-degree line. As energy prices and food prices mean-revert some, core inflation should stay a little bubbly for a while.
Now, there’s three ways to get back to the line. We can see prices rise. We can see GDP rise. Or we can see the money supply fall. The latter two effects are better for consumers. The “GDP rises” is the best for everyone, although that’s the slowest-moving of the pieces. The “money supply fall” option is the best for consumers, but the worst for investors. Presently, we’re seeing a little bit of all three. But here is where I should take a moment to highlight how important the Fed’s balance sheet reduction has been in this process. Here is a chart from 2019Q4 to the present, just for the US, showing how this relationship developed over time.
Initially, of course, there was a massive increase in money with no change in prices, as COVID hit in 2020. The point at (30%, 0%) is what the Fed had to work with as the lockdowns began to be lifted in late summer 2020. The sharp single-quarter reversal there was the result of the massive GDP spike in 2020Q3.
At that point, we would have anticipated that if nothing else happened, we would see a gradual 23% or so increase in the price level. If the Fed had immediately pulled back on the money printing, probably a lot less. Instead, the money printing continued for quite a while until by the middle of 2022 we were looking at a change in M/Q of about 37% since the end of 2019. Right about that time, the Fed got alarmed and began to shrink the balance sheet (and hike rates, although you will notice that the price of money does not show up on this chart but only its quantity!) That, combined with some decent growth, has decreased the pent-up pressure on prices. As of the end of 2023Q3, the aggregate M/Q change was 26.2%, while core prices had risen 16.4% (headline prices, including a 33% increase in energy and a 25% increase in food prices, are up 19.5% since the end of 2019).
If the money supply grows only at the rate of GDP from here, then this line will turn vertical and we have about a 10% increase in core inflation to ‘make up’ before we are back on the line. The good news is that the Fed currently is still reducing its balance sheet; the bad news is that M2 since April has stopped declining. More bad news is that GDP is likely to be soft or even negative here over the next few quarters, judging from payrolls, delinquencies, and other data. We could also hold out hope that velocity won’t fully rebound to pre-COVID levels, but there’s no reason other than “it sure would be nice if that happened” to expect that. Ergo, I think we’re still looking at higher-for-longer not just in the interest rate structure, but in the trajectory of inflation.
The most astonishing point on the charts above, in my mind, is the Japan point especially on the first chart. The amazing part isn’t that Japan’s inflation rate is lower than that of other countries here. They’ve added less money, so as a first pass you’d expect less inflation. But what’s amazing is that the Yen is also an absolute basket case, which means that imports – like, say, oil or gasoline – have gone up a lot more in price than for other countries. Crude oil in USD has risen about 22% in USD terms since the end of 2019. It’s up 66% in Yen terms! And yet, even with that Japanese inflation has stayed relatively low. So far. These charts tell me that I’d want to buy Japanese inflation and sell EU and UK inflation, where prices are closer to already reflecting the effect of the money geyser than they are in Japan.
[1] “Are Money Growth and Inflation Still Related?”, Economic Review, Federal Reserve Board of Atlanta, 2nd Quarter, 1999. https://www.atlantafed.org/-/media/documents/research/publications/economic-review/1999/q2/vol84no2_dwyer-hafer.pdf
Money Velocity Update!
Now that we have our first estimate of GDP for Q3, we also have our first estimate of M2 velocity for the third quarter. Because there is an amazing amount of uninformed hypothesis out there, I figured it was worth a quick review of where we are and where we’re going, and why it matters.
Why it matters: without the rebound in velocity, the slow-but-steady decline in M2 that we have experienced since mid-2022 would be outright deflationary. The money decline and the velocity re-acceleration are part and parcel of the same event, and that is the geyser of money that was squirted into the economy during COVID. Velocity collapsed for mostly mechanical reasons: it is a plug number in MVºPQ, and since prices do not instantly adjust to the new money supply float, velocity must decline to balance the equation. Another way of looking at it is that if you add money to people’s accounts faster than they can spend it then velocity will decline. I have previously presented an analogy that in this unique circumstance money velocity behaves as if it were a spring connecting a car, speeding away suddenly, with a trailer that has some inertia. Initially the spring absorbs the potential energy, and later provides it to the trailer as it catches up. Ultimately, the spring returns to its original length, when the car has stopped accelerating and the trailer is going at the same speed.
As M2 has declined in an unprecedented way, after surging in an unprecedented way, velocity has rebounded in an unprecedented way after plunging in an unprecedented way. All of these things are connected, episodically (but we will look at the underlying, lasting dynamics in a bit). With this latest GDP update, M2 velocity rose 1.9%, the 9th largest quarterly jump since 1970. Over the last four quarters, it has risen 10.4%, the largest on record, and 16% over eight quarters, also the largest on record.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V
To return to the level M2 Velocity was at, at the end of 2020Q1, it needs to rise another 4.8%. For M2 to return to the level it was at, at the end of 2020Q1, it needs to fall another 23%. One of these is likely to happen; the other one is not. The net difference, after subtracting cumulative growth (8.8% since then, so far), is a permanent increase in the price level. If M2 continues to come down, the net effect is a higher level of inflation over this period but not calamitous.
Note that there is no way we get the price level back to where it was, unless M2 declines considerably farther for considerably longer, or unless money velocity inexplicably turns around and dives again. I know that some well-known bond bull portfolio managers have been calling for that, but they were wrong the whole way along so why would you listen to them now?
I’ve been pretty clear that (a) I have been surprised that the Fed was successful in decreasing the money supply, since I thought the elasticity of loan supply would be more than the elasticity of loan demand (I was wrong), (b) I think the Fed deserves credit for shrinking the balance sheet, which they have long said doesn’t matter (it matters far more than interest rates, for inflation), (c) Powell deserves credit for turning into a hawk and pushing the institution of the Federal Reserve to become hawkish after decades under Greenspan, Bernanke, and Yellen where the only question being asked was ‘do we wait for the stock market to drop 10%, or only 5%, before we flood the system with money?’ Chairman Powell deservedly will go down in history as the guy who recognized the ‘spring effect’ that kept long-term upward pressure on inflation even as so many people were chirping about supply constraints and ‘transitory inflation’ (including, to be fair, Powell himself. But whatever he said, what he did was pretty reasonable).
However, the next bit is going to be challenging.
Velocity, being the inverse of the demand for real cash balances, is primarily affected by two main forces – one of them durable and one of them ephemeral. The ephemeral effect, which is rarely super-important, is that people tend to want to hold more cash when they are uncertain. Indeed, our model for velocity actually captured accidentally some of the ‘spring effect’ because for us it showed up as extreme uncertainty. Put another way, even if the Fed hadn’t flushed tons of money into the system, velocity would have had something of a sharp decline because of the high degree of economic uncertainty. Ergo, it was crucial that they flush in at least some money because otherwise we would have had outright deflation. They didn’t get the magnitude right, but they got the sign right. Anyway, the ‘uncertainty’ effect doesn’t last forever. The measure of uncertainty I use is a news-based index of economic policy uncertainty; it has retraced about 85% of its spike although it has been persistently high since political divisiveness became the main fact of US political life back in 2009 or so.
The more durable effect on the desire to hold cash is the presence of better-yielding alternatives to cash. When interest rates are uniformly zero and the stock market is on the moon, there’s very little reason to not hold cash. But when non-cash rates are high, and stocks and other investments more reasonably priced, cash is a wasting asset that people want to ‘put to work.’ The easiest way to see that is with interest rates, which for the last couple of decades have tracked the decline in money velocity closely as both declined.
And here is the problem. If interest rates are back at 2007 levels, then naïvely we would expect velocity to be back in the vicinity of 2007 levels also. But that is massively higher than the current level. In 2007, money velocity was around 1.98 or so: about 49% higher than the current level!
Needless to say, there’s no way the money supply is contracting that much. If velocity rose even, say, 30% then we would have a serious and long-lasting inflation problem. Fortunately, because of the economic policy uncertainty and other non-interest rate effects (I did say that “naïvely” we would be looking for 1.98, right?), the eventual rise in velocity beyond the snap-back level is much less than that. It actually only adds about 6% to the snap-back level. That still means 2% more inflation than would otherwise be expected, for three years, or 3% more for two years.
Of course, interest rates could fall again and ‘fix’ that problem. But it’s hard to see that happening while the money supply continues to contract, isn’t it? And that’s where it gets difficult. If you continue to decrease the balance sheet – which you need to do – and money continues to contract, then you probably get more velocity and inflation stays higher than you expect. Or, if you drop interest rates then you don’t get velocity much over the pre-COVID level, but you also get more money growth and inflation stays higher than you expect.
All of which adds up to one reason why I continue to think that inflation will stay sticky and higher than we want it, for a while. Powell has surprised me before, though, and this would be a good time to do it again.
Enough with Interest Rates Already
One of the things which alternately frustrates me and fascinates me is the mythology surrounding the idea that the central bank can address inflation by manipulating the price of money, even if it ignores the quantity of money.
I say “mythology” because there is virtually no empirical support for this notion, and the theoretical support for it depends on a model of flows in the economy that seem contrary to how the economy actually works. The idea, coarsely, is that by making money more dear the central bank will make it harder for businesses to borrow and invest, and for consumers to borrow and spend; therefore growth will slow. This seems to be a reasonable description of how the world works. But this then gets tied into inflation by appealing to the idea that lower aggregate demand should lower price pressures, leading to lower inflation. The models are very clear on this point: lower growth causes less inflation and more growth causes more inflation. The fact that this doesn’t appear to be the case in practice seems not to have lessened the fervor of policymakers for this framework. This is the frustrating part – especially since there is a viable alternative framework which seems to actually describe how the world works in practice, and that is monetarism.
The fascinating part are the incredibly short memories that policymakers enjoy when it comes to pursuing new policy using their preferred framework. Here’s the simplest of examples: from December 2008 until December 2019, the Fed Funds target rate spent 65% of the time pinned at 0.25%. The average Fed funds rate over that period was 0.69%. During that period, core inflation ranged from a low of 0.6% in 2010 to a high of 2.4%, hitting either 2.3% or 2.4% in 2012, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. That 0.6% was an aberration – fully 86% of the time over that 11 years, core inflation was between 1.5% and 2.4%. Ergo, it seems reasonable to point out that ultra–low interest rates did not seem to cause higher inflation. If that is our most-recent experience, then why would the Fed now be aggressively pursuing a theory that depends on the idea that high interest rates will cause lower inflation? The most-recent evidence we have is that interest rates do not seem to affect inflation.
This isn’t just a recent phenomenon. But the nice thing about the post-GFC period is that for a good part of it, the Fed was ignoring bank reserves and the money supply and effecting policy entirely through interest rates (well, occasionally squirting some QE around, but if anything that should have increased inflation – it certainly didn’t dampen the effect of low interest rates). This became explicit in 2014 when Joseph Gagnon and Brian Sack, shortly after leaving the Fed themselves, published “Monetary Policy with Abundant Liquidity: A New Operating Framework for the Federal Reserve.” In this piece, they argued that the Fed should ignore the quantity of reserves in the system, and simply change interest rates that it pays on reserves generated by its open market operations. The fundamental idea is that interest rates matter, and money does not, and the Fed dutifully has followed that framework ever since. As I just noted, though, the results of that experiment would seem to indicate that low interest rates, anyway, don’t seem to have the effect that would be predicted (and which effect is necessary if the policy is to be meaningful).
And really, this shouldn’t be a surprise because for the prior three decades, the level of the real policy rate (adjusting the nominal rate here by core CPI, not headline) has been completely unrelated to the subsequent change in core inflation.
So, to sum up: for at least 40 years, the level of real policy rates has had no discernable effect on changes in the level of inflation. And yet, current central bank dogma is that rates are the only thing that matters.
I stopped the chart in 2014 because that’s when the Gagnon/Sack experiment began, but it doesn’t really change anything to extend it to the current day. Actually, all you get is a massive acceleration and deceleration in core inflation that all happened before any interest rate changes affected growth (seeing as how we have not yet had a recession). So it’s a result-within-a-result, in fact.
Any observation about how the Fed manages the price of money rather than its quantity would not be complete without pointing out that the St. Louis Federal Reserve’s economist emeritus Daniel L Thorton, one of the last known monetarists at the Fed until his retirement, wrote a paper in 2012 entitled “Monetary Policy: Why Money Matters and Interest Rates Don’t” [emphasis in the original title]. In this well-argued, landmark, iconic, and totally ignored paper Dr. Thornton argued that the central bank should focus almost entirely on the quantity of money, and not its price. Naturally, this is concordant with my own view, plus more than a century of evidence around the world that the price level is closely tied to the quantity of money.
To be fair, the connection of changes in M2 to changes in the price level has also been weak since the mid-1990s, for reasons I’ve discussed at length elsewhere. But at least money has a history of being related to inflation, whereas interest rates do not (except as a result of inflation, rather than as a cause of them); moreover, we can rehabilitate money by separately modeling money velocity.
There does not appear to be any way to rehabilitate interest rate policy as a tool for addressing inflation. It hasn’t worked, it isn’t working, and it won’t work.
Summary of My Post-CPI Tweets (February 2023)
Below is a summary of my post-CPI tweets. You can (and should!) follow me @inflation_guy, but subscribers to @InflGuyPlus get the tweets in real time and a conference call wrapping it all up by about the time the stock market opens. Subscribe by going to the shop at https://inflationguy.blog/shop/ , where you can also subscribe to the Enduring Investments Quarterly Inflation Outlook. Sign up for email updates to my occasional articles here. Individual and institutional investors, issuers and risk managers with interests in this area be sure to stop by Enduring Investments! Check out the Inflation Guy podcast!
- Welcome to the #CPI #inflation walkup! To be sure, the importance of this data point in the short run is much less than it was a week ago, but it would be a mistake to lose sight of inflation now that the Fed is likely moving from QT to QE again.
- A reminder to subscribers of the tweet schedule: At 8:30ET, when the data drops, I will post a number of charts and numbers, in fairly rapid-fire succession. Then I will retweet some of those charts with comments attached. Then I’ll run some other charts.
- Afterwards (recently it’s been 9:30ish) I will have a private conference call for subscribers where I’ll quickly summarize the numbers.
- After my comments on the number, I will post a partial summary at https://inflationguy.blog and later will podcast a summary at inflationguy.podbean.com .
- I am also going to try and record the conference call for later. I think I’ve figured out how to do that. If I’m successful, I’ll tweet that later also.
- Thanks again for subscribing! And now for the walkup.
- This picture of the last month has changed quite a bit over the last few days! Suddenly, rates have reversed and the nominal curve is steepening. The inflation market readings are…of sketchy quality at the moment.
- Now, the swap market has also re-priced the inflation trough: instead of 2.65% in June (was in low 2s not long ago), the infl swap market now has y/y bottoming at 3.34% b/c of base effects before bouncing to 3.7% & then down to 3.15% by year-end. I think that’s pretty unlikely.
- Let’s remember that Median CPI reached a new high JUST LAST MONTH, contrary to expectations (including mine). The disturbing inflation trend is what had persuaded investors…until late last week…that the Fed might abruptly lurch back to a 50bp hike.
- These are real trends…so I’m not sure why economists are acting as if they are still certain that inflation is decelerating. The evidence that it is, so far at least, is sparse.
- Also, this month not only did the Manheim used car index rise again, but Black Book (historically a better fit although BLS has changed their sampling source so we’re not sure) also did. I have that adding 0.04%-0.05% to core.
- But maybe this is a good time to step back a bit, because of the diminished importance of this report (to be sure, if we get a clean 0.5%, it’s going to be very problematic for the Fed which means it should also be problematic for equity investors).
- Over the last few days we’ve read a lot about how banks are seeing deposits leave for higher-yielding opportunities. This is completely expected: as interest rates rise, the demand for real cash balances declines.
- You may have heard me say that before. But it’s really Friedman who said that first: velocity is the inverse of the demand for real cash balances. DEPOSITS LEAVING FOR HIGHER YIELDS IS EXACTLY WHAT HIGHER VELOCITY MEANS.
- And it is the reason for the very high correlation of velocity with interest rates.
- So the backdrop is this: money may be declining slightly but velocity is rebounding hard. Exactly as we should expect. Our model is shown here – it’s heavily influenced by interest rates (but not only interest rates).
- And if the Fed is going to move from its modest QT to QE, especially if they don’t ALSO slash rates back towards zero, then the inflationary impulse has little reason to fade.
- You know, I said back when the Fed started hiking that they would stop once the market forced them to. What has been amazing is that there were no accidents until now, so the market let them go for it. And in the long run this is good news – rates nearer neutral.
- But we have now had some bumps (and to be fair, I said no accidents until now but of course if the FDIC and Fed had been doing their job and monitoring duration gaps…this accident started many many months ago).
- With respect to how the Fed responds to this number: it is important to remember that the IMPACT ON INFLATION of an incremental 25bps or 50bps is almost zero. Especially in the short run. It might even be precisely zero.
- But the impact of 25bps or 50bps on attitudes, on deposit flight, and on liquidity hoarding could be severe, in the short run. On the other hand, if the Fed stands pat and does nothing but end QT, it might smack of panic.
- If I were at the Fed, I’d be deciding between 25bps and 0bps. And the only decent argument for 25bps is that it evinces a “business as usual” air. It won’t affect 2023 inflation at all (even using the Fed’s models which assume rates affect inflation).
- Here are the forecasts I have for the number – I tweeted this yesterday too. I’m a full 0.1% higher on core than the Street economists, market, and Kalshi. But I’m in-line on headline. So obviously as noted above I see the risks as higher.
- Market reactions? If we get my number or higher, it creates an obvious dilemma for the Fed and that means bad things for the market no matter how the Fed resolves that. Do they ignore inflation or ignore market stability?
- If we get lower than the economists’ expectation (on core), then it’s good news for the market because MAYBE it means the Fed isn’t in quite such a bad box and can do more to support liquidity (read: support the mo mo stock guys).
- So – maybe this report is important after all! Good luck today. I will be back live at 8:31ET.
- Well, headline was below core!
- Waiting for database to update but on a glance this doesn’t look good. Core was an upside surprise slightly and that was with used cars a DRAG.
- m/m CPI: 0.37% m/m Core CPI: 0.452%
- Last 12 core CPI figures
- So this to me looks like bad news. I don’t see the deceleration that everyone was looking for. We will look at some of the breakdown in a minute.
- M/M, Y/Y, and prior Y/Y for 8 major subgroups
- Standing out a couple of things: Apparel (small weight) jumps again…surprising. And Medical Care is back to a drag…some of that is insurance adjustment (-4.07% m/m, pretty normal) and some is Doctors Services (-0.52% m/m), while Pharma (0.14%) only a small add.
- Core Goods: 1.03% y/y Core Services: 7.26% y/y
- We start to see the problem here: any drag continues to be in core goods. Core goods does not have unlimited downside especially with the USD on the back foot. Core services…no sign of slowing.
- Primary Rents: 8.76% y/y OER: 8.01% y/y
- And rents…still accelerating y/y.
- Further: Primary Rents 0.76% M/M, 8.76% Y/Y (8.56% last) OER 0.7% M/M, 8.01% Y/Y (7.76% last) Lodging Away From Home 2.3% M/M, 6.7% Y/Y (7.7% last)
- Last month, OER and Primary Rents had slipped a bit and econs assumed that was the start of the deceleration. Maybe, but they re-accelerated a bit this month. Lodging away from home a decent m/m jump, but actually declined y/y so you can see that’s seasonal.
- Some ‘COVID’ Categories: Airfares 6.38% M/M (-2.15% Last) Lodging Away from Home 2.26% M/M (1.2% Last) Used Cars/Trucks -2.77% M/M (-1.94% Last) New Cars/Trucks 0.18% M/M (0.23% Last)
- FINALLY we see the rise in airfares that has been long overdue. I expected this to add 0.01% to core; it actually added 0.05%. Those who want to say this is a good number will screech “outlier!” but really it’s just catching up. The outlier is used cars.
- Both the Manheim and Black Book surveys clearly showed an increase in used car prices. But the BLS has recently changed methodologies on autos. Not clear what they’re using. Maybe it’s just timing and used will add back next month. We will see.
- Here is my early and automated guess at Median CPI for this month: 0.634%
- Now, the caveat to this chart is that I was off last month (the actual figure reported is shown), but that was January. I think I’ll be better on February. I have the median category as Food Away from Home. This chart is bad news for the deceleration crowd, and for the Fed.
- Piece 1: Food & Energy: 7.97% y/y
- OK, Food and Energy is decelerating, but both still contributed high rates of change. Energy will oscillate. It is uncomfortable that Food is still adding.
- Piece 2: Core Commodities: 1.03% y/y
- This is the reason headline was lower than expected. Core goods – in this case largely Used Cars, which I thought would add 0.05% and instead subtracted 0.09% from core. That’s a -14bps swing. +5bps from airfares, but health insurance was a drag…and we were still >consensus.
- Piece 3: Core Services less Rent of Shelter: 5.96% y/y
- …and this is the engine that NEEDS to be heading sharply lower if we’re going to get to 3.15% by end of year. It’s drooping, but not hard.
- Piece 4: Rent of Shelter: 8.18% y/y
- …and I already talked about this. No deceleration evident. As an aside, it’s not clear why we would see one with rising landlord costs, a shortage of housing, and robust wage gains, but…it’s an article of faith out there.
- Core inflation ex-shelter decelerated from 3.94% y/y to 3.74% y/y. That’s good news, although mainly it serves to amplify Used Cars…but look, even if you take out the big add from sticky shelter, we’re still not anywhere near target.
- Equity investors seem to love this figure. Be kind. They’re not thinking clearly these days. It’s a bad number that makes the Fed’s job really difficult.
- Note that Nick Timiraos didn’t signal anything yesterday…that means the Fed hasn’t decided yet. Which means they cared about this number. Which means to me that we’re likely getting 25bps, not 0bps. Now, maybe they just wanted to watch banking for another few days, but…
- …the inflation news isn’t good. As I said up top, 25bps doesn’t mean anything to inflation, but if they skip then it means we are back in QE and hold onto your hats because inflation is going to be a problem for a while.
- Even if they hike, they will probably arrest QT – and that was the only part of policy that was helping. Higher rates was just accelerating velocity. But I digress. Point is, this is a bad print for a Fed hoping for an all-clear hint.
- The only core categories with annualized monthly changes lower than -10% was Used Cars and Trucks (-29%). Core categories ABOVE +10% annualized monthly: Public Transport (+46%), Lodging AFH (+31%), Jewelry/Watches (+20%), Misc Personal Svcs (+17.7%), Footwear (+18%), >>>
- Women’s/Girls’ Apparel (+15%), Tobacco and Smoking Products (+13%), Recreation (+11%), Motor Vehicle Insurance (+11%), Infants’/Toddlers’ Apparel (+11%), and Misc Personal Goods (+10%). Although I also have South Urban OER at +10%, using my seasonality estimate.
- On the Medical Care piece, we really should keep in mind this steady drag from the crazy Health Insurance plug estimate for this year. It’ll almost certainly be an add next year. Imagine where we’d be on core if that was merely flat rather than in unprecedented deflation.
- Let’s go back to median for a bit. The m/m Median was 0.63% (my estimate), which is right in line with last month. The caveat is that the median category was Food Away from Home but that was surrounded by a couple of OER categories which are the ones I have to estimate. [Corrected from original tweet, which cited 0.55% as my median estimate]
- I can’t re-emphasize this enough. Inflation still hasn’t PEAKED, much less started to decline.
- One place we had seen some improvement was in narrowing BREADTH of inflation. Still broad, but narrower. However, this month it broadened again just a bit and the EIIDI ticked higher. Higher median, broader inflation…and that’s with Used Cars a strange drag.
- Stocks still don’t get it, but breakevens do. The 10y BEI is +7bps today. ESH3 is +49 points though!
- We’ll stop it there for now. Conference call will be at 9:30ET (10 minutes). (518) [redacted] Access Code [redacted]. I will be trying to record this one for playback for subscribers who can’t tune in then.
- The conference call recording seemed to go well. If you want to listen to it, you can call the playback number at (757) 841-1077, access code 736735. The recording is about 12 minutes long.
In retrospect, my forecast of 0.4% on seasonally-adjusted headline and 0.5% on core looks pretty good…but that’s only because we got significant downward one-offs, notably from Used Cars. If Used Cars had come in where I was expecting (+1.4%) instead of where it actually came in (-2.8%), and the rest of the report had been the same, then core inflation would have been 0.6% and we would be having a very different discussion right now.
As it is, this is not the number that the Fed needed. Inflation has not yet peaked, and that’s with Health Insurance providing a 4-5bps drag every month. That’s with Used Cars showing a drag instead of the contribution I expected. The “transitory” folks will be pointing to rents and saying that it seems ridiculous, and ‘clearly must decline,’ but that’s not as clear to me. Landlords are facing increased costs for maintenance, financing, energy, taxes; there is a shortage of housing so there is a line of tenants waiting to rent, and wage growth remains robust so these tenants can pay. Why should rents decelerate or even (as some people have been declaring) decline?
Apparel was also a surprising add. Its weight is low but the strength is surprising. A chart of the apparel index is below. Clothing prices now are higher than they’ve been since 2000. The USA imports almost all of its apparel. This is a picture of the effect of deglobalization, perhaps.
So all of this isn’t what the Fed wanted to see. A nice, soft inflation report would have allowed the Fed to gracefully turn to supporting markets and banks, and put the inflation fight on hold at least temporarily. But the water is still boiling and the pot needs to be attended. I think it would be difficult for the Fed to eschew any rate hike at all, given this context. However, I do believe they’ll stop QT – selling bonds will only make the mark-to-market of bank securities holdings worse.
But in the bigger picture, the FOMC at some point needs to address the question of why nearly 500bps of rate hikes have had no measurable effect on inflation. Are the lags just much longer than they thought, and longer than in the past? That seems a difficult argument. But it may be more palatable to them than considering whether increasing interest rates by fiat while maintaining huge quantities of excess reserves is a strategy that – as monetarists would say and have been saying – should not have a significant effect on inflation. The Fed models of monetary policy transmission have been terribly inaccurate. The right thing to do is to go back to first principles and ask whether the models are wrong, especially since there is a cogent alternative theory that could be considered.
Back when I wrote What’s Wrong With Money?, my prescription for unwinding the extraordinary largesse of the global financial crisis – never mind the orders-of-magnitude larger QE of COVID policy response – was exactly the opposite. I said the Fed should decrease the money supply, while holding interest rates down (since, if interest rates rise, velocity should be expected to rise as well and this will exacerbate the problem in the short-term). The Fed has done the opposite, and seem so far to be getting the exact opposite result than they want.
Just sayin’.
The Powell of Positive Thinking
Yes: Federal Reserve Chairman Powell was very hawkish at his Congressional testimony on Tuesday and Wednesday. He clearly signaled (again) that once Fed overnight policy rates reach a peak, they would not be declining for a while. He additionally signaled that the peak probably will be higher than previously signaled (I’ve been saying and thinking 5% for a while, but it’s going to be higher), and even signaled the increasing likelihood of a return to 50bp hikes after the recent deceleration to 25bps.
This latter point, in my view, is the least likely since all of the reasons for the step down to 25bps remain valid: whether the peak is 5% or 6%, it is relatively nearby and the confidence that we should have that rates have not risen enough should therefore be decreasing rapidly. Moreover, since monetary policy works with a lag and there has been very little lag since the aggressive tightening campaign began, it would be reasonable to slow down or stop to assess the effect that prior hikes have had.
But here is the bigger point, and one that Powell did not broach. There is really not much evidence at all that the Fed’s hikes to date have affected inflation. It is completely an article of faith that they surely will, but this is not the same as saying that they have. Consider for a moment: in what way could we plausibly argue that rate hikes so far have been responsible for the decline in inflation? The decline in inflation has been entirely from the goods sector, and a good portion of that has been from used cars returning to a normal level (meaning, in line with the growth in money) after having overshot. How exactly has monetary policy driven down the prices of goods?
This is not to say that higher interest rates have not affected economic activity, and this (to me) is the real surprise: given the amount of leverage extant in the corporate world, it amazes me that we haven’t seen a more-serious retrenchment. Some of this is pent-up demand that still needs to be satisfied, for example in housing where significant rate hikes would normally dampen housing demand substantially and seems to have. However, there is a severe shortage of housing in the country and so construction continues (and home prices, while they have fallen slightly, show no signs of the collapse that so many have forecast). Higher rates are also rippling through the commercial MBS market, as many commercial landlords have inexplicably financed their projects with floating rate debt and where the cost of leverage can make or break the project.
Higher interest rates, on the other hand, tend to support residential rents, at least until unemployment eventually rises appreciably. I think perhaps that not many economists are landlords, but higher costs tend to not result in a desire to charge lower rents. On the commercial side, leases are for longer and turnover is more costly, but the average residential landlord these days is not facing a shortage of demand.
So where have rate hikes caused inflation to decline? Judging from the fact that Median CPI just set a new high, I think the answer is pretty plain: they haven’t. And yet, the Fed believes that if they keep hiking, inflation will fall into place. Where else can we more plainly see at work the maxim that “if a piece doesn’t fit, you’re not using a big enough hammer?” Or maybe, this is just a reflection of the notion that if you want something bad enough, the wanting itself will cause the thing to happen. [N.B. this is really more in line with the prescription from Napoleon Hill’s classic book “Think and Grow Rich”, but the title of Peale’s equally-classic “The Power of Positive Thinking” suggested a catchier title for this article. Consider it poetic license.]
Moreover, what we have seen is that higher interest rates have had the predicted effect on money velocity. Although I have elsewhere noted that part of the rebound in money velocity so far is due to the ‘spring force’ effect, there is substantial evidence that one of the main drivers of money velocity is the interest rate earned on non-cash balances. Enough so, in fact, that I wrote about the connection in June 2022 in a piece entitled “The Coming Rise in Money Velocity,” before the recent surge in velocity began. [I’d also call your attention to a recently-published article by Samuel Reynard of the Swiss National Bank, “Central bank balance sheet, money, and inflation,” where he incorporates money velocity into his adjusted money supply growth figure. Reynard is one of the last monetarists extant in central banking circles.]
Now, nothing that I have just written is going to deter Powell & Co from continuing to hike rates until demand is finally crushed and, according to their faith but in the absence of evidence to date, inflation will decelerate back to where they want it. But with long-term inflation breakevens priced at levels mirroring that faith, it is worth questioning whether there is some value in being apostate.
The Coming Rise in Money Velocity
As M2 money growth soared throughout the COVID and post-COVID period of direct stimulus check-writing funded by massive quantitative easing (QE), monetarism novices thought that this would not result in inflation because money velocity simultaneously collapsed. Consequently, they argued, M*V was not growing at an outrageous rate.
There was precedence for such optimism. In the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-09, money supply grew rapidly with the onset of QE and money velocity declined, never to recover. The chart below shows in a normalized fashion the rise in M, the decline in V, and the relative quiescence of MV/Q, which is of course P by definition as long as you choose your Ms, Vs, and Qs right.
A similar thing happened in this episode, so why would this be any different?
There are many reasons why these episodes are different. To name a few:
- The absolute scale of the rise in M2 was 2.5x the rise in 2007-2010, and that’s being generous since that measures the growth in 2007-2010 starting almost 2 years before the first QE in November 2008 compared to only 15 months in the second case.
- As I’ve written previously, QE in the first case was directed at banks; at the same time that the Federal Reserve was adding reserves it was also paying banks interest on reserves – because the point was to strengthen banks, not consumers.
- 5y interest rates came into 2008 at 3.44%; they came into 2020 at 1.69%. Since velocity is most highly correlated to interest rates, there was less room for this factor to be a lasting downward influence on velocity (after the crisis began in 2008, 5y Treasury rates never exceeded 3% again except for a few days in 2018).
- Bank credit growth never stopped in the 2020 crisis, while it contracted at a 5% rate in the 2008 crisis (see chart, source Board of Governors of the Fed).
The monetarist novices (you can tell they’re novices because they say things like “Friedman said velocity was constant,” which is false, or “velocity is just a plug number [true] and has no independent meaning of its own [false]”) insisted that velocity was in a permanently declining state and that there was no reason at all to expect it to ever “bounce.” After all, it bounced only slightly after the GFC; why should it do so now?
But after 2008, as I noted, interest rates bounced only briefly before declining again…with the added phenomenon that some global debt came to bear negative yields, calling into fair question whether there was in fact any natural “bottom” to velocity if interest rates are the main driver! And velocity, obediently, dripped lower as well.
There is at least one other big driver to money velocity, although it is rarely important and almost never for very long. And that is economic uncertainty, which creates a demand to carry excess cash balances (implying lower money velocity). A model driven (mainly) by rates and a measure of uncertainty has done a pretty good job at explaining velocity over time (see chart, source Enduring Investments), including explaining the collapse in velocity during the COVID crisis out-of-sample.
Now, explaining velocity is a helluva lot easier than predicting it, because it isn’t easy to predict interest rates. Nor is it easy to predict the precautionary demand for money – but at least we can count on that being somewhat mean-reverting. The latest point from the model shown above uses current data, and suggests (largely because of the rise in interest rates, but also because precautionary balances are declining) that money velocity should bounce. Not that the model predicts it will happen this week, but it should not be surprising when it does.
A rise in velocity would be a really bad thing, because the money supply is very unlikely to decline very far especially while bank credit growth continues to grow. The only reason we have been able to sustain 6% or 8% money growth for a very long time has been because we could count on velocity to keep declining with interest rates. If money growth ticks up at, say, a mere 6% while money velocity rises 5%, then nominal GDP is going to rise 11%…and most of that will be in prices.
Now, this is a very slow-moving story. I mention it now for one specific reason, and that is that we are almost certain to see a rise in velocity in Q2 when the GDP figures come out in late July. That’s because money growth for the quarter has been very slow so far. So far, the Q2 average M2 is 0.06% higher than the Q1 average. My best wild guess is that we will end up with an 0.5% annualized q/q growth rate. The Atlanta Fed GDPNow model estimates 0.25% GDP growth in Q2 (the Blue Chip Consensus is still at 3%). And if the inflation market is right, Q/Q inflation in Q2 will be about 11.7%. That’s CPI, so let’s be generous and say 9%. We don’t know all of these numbers, but we know 2/3 of all of them. Let’s use the Blue Chip consensus for GDP and assume M2 doesn’t spike next month and the price level doesn’t collapse. Then:
If that happened, the increase would be the largest quarterly jump in money velocity – absent the reactionary bounce in 2020Q3 after the 20% plunge in 2020Q2 – since 1981. And here’s the rub: because of the mathematics of declines and recoveries, that would still leave us with velocity that prior to 2020 would have been an all-time record low.
Does this matter? Not if you believe the monetarism dabblers, who will say this is a mechanical adjustment that will soon be reversed as velocity continues its long slide to oblivion. Nor will it matter to the Fed, who at best will take executive notice of the fact before ignoring it since they aren’t monetarists any longer. But for those who think that inflation comes from too much money chasing too few goods? It’s scary.
