Bloomberg: Poole jumps in



[Skip to the end]

The Fed’s mission is to not let a relative value story turn into an inflation story.

When food/fuel prices rise, consumers have less to spend on other things; so, they should moderate to keep it all a relative value story.

But even though core CPI hasn’t gone up as fast as headline (YET), it has gone up to 2.3%. Rather than stay the same or go down; so, the relative value story is slowing turning into an inflation story.

And my guess is that most of Congress isn’t going to like the idea that the Fed’s job is to keep wages ‘behaving’ (suppressed) when food/fuel goes up, as Poole states below:

Poole Says Fed Needs to Help Prevent Wage Increase

by Kathleen Hays and Timothy R. Homan

(Bloomberg) The Federal Reserve needs to prevent the public’s expectation that inflation will accelerate from spurring demands for higher wages, William Poole, former St. Louis Fed President, said today.

“You want to keep wages behaving,” Poole said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. Once the public’s anticipation of rising prices begins to stoke demands for higher wages, “the jig is up” and inflation becomes harder to eradicate.

The public’s outlook for annual inflation over five years stood at 3.4 percent in June, up from 2.9 percent the same month last year, according to the Reuters/University of Michigan Survey.

Comments by Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and other policy makers this month have compelled traders to increase bets the central bank will start to lift the main lending rate later this year to keep rising food and energy costs from influencing labor agreements and other prices.

“We should be moving sooner rather than later,” Poole said, referring to an interest-rate increase.


[top]

RE: BOE letter



[Skip to the end]

(an interoffice email)

>
>   On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 7:58 AM, DV wrote:
>
>   Mervyn King was required this morning to write a letter to the
>   Chancellor explaining why inflation was greater then 3% in the UK
>   (released this morning at 3.2% vs. 3% previously). The letter follows
>   and was taken as dovish by the markets as it seemed to have more
>   emphasis on the weakening economy then additional upside inflation
>   risks.
>
>   DV
>

Letter to the Chancellor

The CPI inflation rate for May, to be published at 9:30 am tomorrow by the Office for National Statistics, is 3.1%. That is more than one percentage point above our target of 2%. Under the terms of the remit you have given us, I am, therefore, writing an open letter to you today on behalf of the Monetary Policy Committee. As requested by the National Statistician, in order to avoid conflict with the release of the official statistic, in this case the CPI, the Bank of England will publish this open letter at 10:30am.

Our remit specifies that an open letter should explain why inflation has moved away from the target, the period within which we expect inflation to return to the target, the policy action that the Committee is taking to deal with it, and how this approach meets the Government’s monetary policy objectives.

Why has inflation moved away from the target?
Inflation has risen sharply this year, from 2.1% in December to 3.3% in May. That rise can be accounted for by large and, until recently, unanticipated increases in the prices of food, fuel, gas and electricity. These components alone account for 1.1 percentage points of the 1.2 percentage points increase in the CPI inflation rate since last December. Those sharp price changes reflect developments in the global balance of demand and supply for food and energy.

In the year to May:

  • world agricultural prices increased by 60% and UK retail food prices by 8%.
  • oil prices rose by more than 80% to average USD123 a barrel and UK retail fuel prices increased by 20%.
  • wholesale gas prices increased by 160% and UK household electricity and gas bills by around 10%.

The global nature of these price changes is evident in inflation rates not only in the UK but also overseas, although the timing of their impact on consumer prices differs across countries. In May, HICP inflation in the euro area was 3.7% and US CPI inflation was 4.2%. As described in our May Inflation Report, inflation is likely to rise significantly further above the 2% target in the next six months or so.

The May Report set out three main reasons for this:

  • The increase in oil prices will continue to pass through to the costs faced businesses.
  • Rising wholesale gas prices are expected to lead utility companies to announce further tariff increases. There is considerable uncertainty about their size and timing.
  • The depreciation of sterling, which has fallen some 12% since its peak last July, has boosted the prices of imports and will add to the pressure on consumer prices.

The Committee’s central projection, described in its May Inflation Report, was for CPI inflation to rise to over 3 1/2%% later this year. But in the past month, oil prices have risen by about 15% and wholesale gas futures prices for the coming winter have increased by a similar amount. As things stand, inflation is likely to rise sharply in the second half of the year, to above 4%. I must stress, however, that there are considerable uncertainties, in both directions, around this, and any such projection is particularly sensitive to changes in domestic gas and electricity charges.

There are good reasons to expect the period of above-target inflation we are experiencing now to be temporary. We are seeing a change in commodity, energy and import prices relative to the prices of other goods and services. Although this clearly raises the price level, it is not the same as continuing inflation.

There is not a generalised rise in prices and wages caused by rapid growth in the amount of money spent in the economy. In contrast to past episodes of rising inflation, money spending is increasing at a normal rate. In the year to 2008 Q1, it rose by 5 1/2%, in line with the average rate of increase since 1997 – a period in which inflation has been low and stable. Moreover, in recent months the growth rate of the broad money supply has eased and credit conditions have tightened. This will restrain the growth of money spending in the future.

Over what period does the MPC expect inflation to return to the target?
It is possible that commodity prices will rise further in the coming months – oil prices have now been rising for four years. But in the absence of further unexpected increases in oil and commodity prices, inflation should peak around the end of the year and begin to fall back towards the 2% target. Nevertheless, each monthly rise in food, energy and import prices will, by pushing up the overall price level, affect the official twelve-month measure of inflation for a year. So CPI inflation is likely to remain markedly above the target until well into 2009.

I expect, therefore, that this will be the first of a sequence of open letters over the next year or so. The remit for the Monetary Policy Committee states that:

“The framework takes into account that any economy at some point can suffer from external events or temporary difficulties, often beyond its control. The framework is based on the recognition that the actual inflation rate will on occasions depart from its target as a result of shocks and disturbances. Attempts to keep inflation at the inflation target in these circumstances may cause undesirable volatility in output”.

The Committee believes that, if Bank Rate were set to bring inflation back to the target within the next 12 months, the result would be unnecessary volatility in output and employment. So the MPC is aiming to return inflation to the 2% target within its normal forecast horizon of around two years, when the present sharp rises in energy and food prices will have dropped out of the CPI inflation rate. Nevertheless, the Committee is concerned about the present and prospective period of above-target inflation. It is crucial that prices other than those of commodities, energy and imports do not start to rise at a faster rate.

That would happen if those making decisions about prices and pay began to expect higher inflation in the future and acted on that. It could also happen if employees respond to the loss of real spending power that results from higher commodity prices by bidding for more substantial pay increases. Pay growth has remained moderate. But surveys indicate that higher inflation has already had an impact on the public’s expectations of inflation. For that reason, the Committee believes that, to return inflation to the target, it will be necessary for economic growth to slow this year.

A slowdown is already in train. Moreover, as described in the Committee’s May Inflation Report, the prospective squeeze on real incomes associated with higher inflation, together with the reduced availability of credit, is likely to lead to a further slowing in activity this year. This will reduce pressure on the supply capacity of the economy and dampen increases in prices and wages. What policy action are we taking? Since December, Bank Rate has been reduced three times, to stand at 5%. When setting Bank Rate the Committee has faced a balancing act between two risks. On the upside, the risk that above-target inflation could persist explains why the Committee has not responded more aggressively to signs that the economy is slowing. On the downside, the risk is that the slowdown could be so sharp that inflation did not just return to the target but was pulled below. This explains why Bank Rate has been reduced at a time when inflation is above the target.

The MPC will discuss at its July meeting the implications of the latest inflation and other economic data for the balance of these risks. That analysis will be described in the minutes, published two weeks later, and a fully updated forecast will be presented in the August Inflation Report. The path of Bank Rate that will be necessary to meet the 2% target is uncertain. The MPC will continue to make its judgement about the appropriate level of Bank Rate month by month.

How does this approach meet the Government’s monetary policy objectives?
Over the past decade, inflation has been low and stable. Volatility in commodity, energy and import prices means that inflation will now be less stable but it does not mean that inflation will persist at a higher rate. The Committee will maintain price stability by ensuring that the rise in inflation is temporary and that it returns to the 2% target. In the short term, this commitment should give those setting prices and wages some confidence that inflation will be close to the target in the future. That will minimise the slowdown in economic activity that will be necessary to ensure that inflation does fall back. In the longer term, price stability, as our remit states, is “a precondition for high and stable levls of growth and employment”.

We have seen in the past how the need to reduce inflation from persistently high levels has required prolonged periods of subdued economic growth. The resulting instability in our economy deterred investment and contributed to poor economic performance over a longer period. The Monetary Policy Committee remains determined to set interest rates at the level required to bring inflation back to the 2% target, and I welcome the opportunity to explain our thinking in this open letter.

I am copying this letter to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, through which we are accountable to Parliament, and will place it on the Bank of England’s website for public dissemination.

Thanks, seems the risk of crude rising continuously due to demand continues to be downplayed by the world’s central bankers even though it has been the case for several years, so they continue to pursue policies that in their models are designed to at least support demand.

I continue to suggest mainstream history will not be kind to them.


[top]

2008-06-16 Weekly Credit Graph Packet


[Skip to the end]

IG On-the-run Spreads

IG6 Spreads

IG7 Spreads

IG8 Spreads

IG9 Spreads

The wiggles down give the Fed comfort that markets are functioning to price risk.


[top]

2008-06-16 US Economic Releases


[Skip to the end]


Empire Manufacturing (Jun)

Survey -2.0
Actual -8.7
Prior -3.2
Revised n/a

Empire Manufacturing TABLE (Jun)

Looks like the worst is over, but the economy remains on the weak side.

Prices paid still way high.

Looks like number of employees up as well.

[top][end]


Net Long-term TIC Flows (Apr)

Survey $63.3B
Actual $115.1B
Prior $80.4B
Revised $79.6B

[top][end]

Total Net TIC Flows (Apr)

Survey $42.5B
Actual $60.6B
Prior -$48.2B
Revised $79.6B

[top][end]

TIC TABLE (Apr)

[top][end]


NAHB Housing Market Index (Jun)

Survey 19
Actual 18
Prior 19
Revised n/a

A bit worse than expected. Confidence is down all over due to food/crude/import prices. Might be the case here.

[top][end]

NAHB Housing Market Index (Jun)


[top]

2008-06-13 US Economic Releases


[Skip to the end]


Consumer Price Index MoM (May)

Survey 0.5%
Actual 0.6%
Prior 0.2%
Revised n/a

From Karim:

More divergence between headline and core.

  • Headline up .6498% m/m and 4.2% y/y; 3mth annualized rate of 4.9%
  • Core up .202% and 2.3% y/y; 3mth annualized rate of 1.8%

Trends diverging

  • Gas (up 5.7%) and lodging away from home (+1.3%, but just reversing prior mth’s 1.9% drop) only major outliers
  • Medical (0.2%), oer (0.1%) and education (0.4%) all in line with trend

Kohn defended his inflation forecasting approach on Wednesday (based on ’50yrs’ of analysis). Basically using an ‘expectations augmented’ Philips Curve; meaning slack (which he stated is opening up) is largest determinant of inflation, as long as expectations are stable. He said if ‘over time’ expectations did not recede, it would be ‘troublesome’ for inflation; in the meantime, the Fed would ‘temporarily’ allow a rise in both inflation and joblessness. Some Regional Bank Presidents may feel differently.

[top][end]


CPI Ex Food & Energy MoM (May)

Survey 0.2%
Actual 0.2%
Prior 0.1%
Revised n/a

[top][end]


Consumer Price Index YoY (May)

Survey 3.9%
Actual 4.2%
Prior 3.9%
Revised n/a

The dip in the second half of 2006 was entirely due to the Goldman induced commodity sell off when the gasoline weighting in their index was changed.

Prices have now fully recovered and resumed their uptrend.

[top][end]


CPI Ex Food & Energy YoY (May)

Survey 2.3%
Actual 2.3%
Prior 2.3%
Revised n/a

Food and energy prices are just beginning to be passed through to core CPI. Everything is composed of food and energy, so it’s just a matter of time before all prices catch up, particularly with GDP now moving up some with the latest fiscal package kicking in.

Because headline CPI is a smaller percentage of GDP than it was in the 70’s, the passthrough will take a bit longer.

[top][end]


CPI Core Index SA (May)

Survey n/a
Actual 214.832
Prior 214.398
Revised n/a

[top][end]


Consumer Price Index NSA (May)

Survey 216.205
Actual 216.632
Prior 214.823
Revised n/a

[top][end]


U of Michigan Confidence (Jun P)

Survey 59.0
Actual 56.7
Prior 59.8
Revised n/a

Below expectations, but seems inflation is cutting into confidence, so this doesn’t give the Fed a reason not to hike at the next meeting.

[top][end]


Inflation Expectations 1yr Forward (May)

Survey n/a
Actual 5.1%
Prior 5.2%
Revised n/a

This is persisting at far too high a level for Fed comfort.

[top]

Re: Roach-Stagflation


[Skip to the end]

(an email exchange)

A few of things:

First, the rising wages in the 70’s led to bracket creep that put the budget in surplus in 1979 and resulted in a severe recession soon after.

This time around it is unlikely the inflation takes much of a dent out of the deficit so it’s more likely demand will be sustained to support prices. And, at least so far, Congress has acted to sustain demand and support prices with the latest fiscal package and more seemingly on the way.

Second, last time around the oil producers for the most part didn’t spend all that much of their new found revenues and thereby drained demand from the US economy. This time around they seem to be spending on infrastructure at a rate sufficient to drive our exports and keep gdp muddling through.

Third, I recall it was maybe the deregulation of nat gas that freed up a cheap substitute for electric utilities and unleashed a massive supply response as nat gas was substituted for crude at the elect power producers. After 1980 opec cut production by something like 15 million bpd to hold prices above 30 until they could cut no more without capping all their wells and the price tumbled to about 10 where it stood for a long time. This time around that kind of excess supply is nowhere in sight.

>
>   On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Russell wrote:
>
>   Stephan Roach is chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, and pens
>   this missive for the FT, in which he contextualizes why the
>   Fed’s options are limited:
>
>   ”Fears of 1970s-style stagflation are back in the air. Global
>   bond markets are growing ever more nervous over this possibility,
>   and US and European central bankers are talking increasingly
>   tough about the perils of mounting inflation.
>
>   Yet today’s stagflation risks are very different from those that
>   wreaked such havoc 35 years ago. Unlike in that earlier period,
>   wages in the developed economies have been delinked from prices.
>   That all but eliminates the automatic indexation features of the
>   once dreaded wage-price spiral – perhaps the most insidious
>   feature of the “great inflation” of the 1970s. Moreover, as the
>   stunning surge of the US unemployment rate in May suggests,
>   slowing economic growth in the industrial economies is likely to
>   open up further slack in labour markets, thereby putting downward
>   cyclical pressure on wages over the next couple of years.
>
>   But there is a new threat to global inflation that was not present
>   in the 1970s. It is arising from the developing world, especially in
>   Asia, where price pressures are lurching out of control. For
>   developing Asia as a whole, consumer price index inflation hit 7.5
>   per cent in April 2008, close to a 9½-year high and more than double
>   the 3.6 per cent pace of a year ago. Sure, a good portion of the recent
>   acceleration in pricing is a result of food and energy – critically
>   important components of household budgets in poorer countries and
>   yet items that many analysts mistakenly remove to get a cleaner read
>   on underlying inflation. But even the residual, or “core”, inflation rate
>   in developing Asia surged to 3.8 per cent in April, more than double
>   the 1.8 per cent pace of a year ago…”
>
>

[top]

BOJ and inflation


[Skip to the end]

Bank of Japan keeps distance from Fed, ECB hawks

by Leika Kihara

(Reuters) Bank of Japan Governor Masaaki Shirakawa distanced himself on Friday from the hawkish tone of U.S. and European central bankers, and signalled slowing economic growth was still a key factor in deciding interest rates.

After keeping rates steady at 0.5 percent as expected, Shirakawa acknowledged that the rising global risk of inflation had prompted the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank to deliver unusually candid warnings to markets this month.

But he said it was equally important to monitor the risk of slowing economic growth in Japan, with financial markets still bruised by a credit crisis weighing on the global economy.

My take is that over the years voters repeatedly show a larger dislike of inflation vs unemployment. They would rather have a slow down and rising unemployment than high inflation. That’s why the politicians charge the CB with controlling inflation. Inflation will get them kicked out of office even faster than unemployment will.

If the BOJ members ‘allow’ inflation and doesn’t hike rates to fight it (that’s what they all think fights inflation), I would expect the politicians will replace them members who will hike.


[top]

Re: The Fed’s dual mandate


[Skip to the end]

(an email exchange)

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Russell wrote:

> The mainstream economists now saying inflation is here to stay. Wow.

Yes, and note this:

Get used to high prices

by Chris Isidore

(CNNMoney.com)But most economists don’t expect the Fed to raise interest rates — its traditional way of combating inflation — until the end of the year at the earliest.

Generally, higher rates cool U.S. economic activity and cut demand for goods and services, which in turn leads to lower prices.

However, the Fed also has a mandate to foster sustainable economic growth. And with the unemployment rate registering its biggest spike in 22 years in May, the Fed is not likely to push rates higher soon, economists said.

They are missing the Fed’s core belief that enables them to meet their dual mandate, that Fisher and others have been repeating:

Low inflation is a necessary condition for optimal growth and employment.

Without that fundamental belief, there is no way to meet both conditions of the dual mandate.

With it, they know, or should know, exactly what to do.


[top]

Watch for full employment to be redefined


[Skip to the end]

It’s about that time of the cycle for ‘learned’ academic papers to start popping up claiming the NAIRU, the ‘non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment’ (or something like that) is in actual fact more like 7% rather than the currently believed 5%.

And expect these findings to show that it’s always been closer to 7%, but that a temporary glut in global supply, due to the removal of prior international trade constraints, temporarily permitted lower unemployment rates to not trigger accelerating inflation.

Now, however, this ‘slack’ has been used up.

That will suggest that inflation will continue to accelerate until the unemployment rate is over 7%, much like it is in the eurozone.


[top]

2008-06-12 US Economic Releases



[Skip to the end]


2008-06-12 Import Price Index MoM

Import Price Index MoM (May)

Survey 2.5%
Actual 2.3%
Prior 1.8%
Revised 2.4%

The Fed sees this as imported inflation pouring through the $ channel.

[top][end]


Import Price Index X Petro (May)

Survey n/a
Actual 113.8
Prior 113.2
Revised n/a

Just in case you thought it was all oil.

[top][end]


Import Price Index YoY (May)

Survey 17.2%
Actual 17.8%
Prior 15.4%
Revised 16.3%

The Fed sees this as a relentless assault on inflation expectations.

[top][end]


Import Price Index X Petro YoY (May)

Survey n/a
Actual 6.6%
Prior 6.6%
Revised n/a

[comments]

[top][end]


Import Prices TABLE (May)

[comments]

[top][end]


Advance Retail Sales (May)

Survey 0.5%
Actual 1.0%
Prior -0.2%
Revised 0.4%

Another better than expected report, and the previous month revised up as well.
If anything, the Fed sees the downside risks to growth are diminishing.
Rebate checks may be doing more than the Fed anticipated.

[top][end]


Advance Retail Sales ALLX (May)

[top][end]


Retail Sales Less Autos (May)

Survey 0.7%
Actual 1.2%
Prior 0.5%
Revised 1.0%

Seems to be broad based spending, though still moderate.

[top][end]


Retail Sales X Auto, Building Materials, & Gas Stations (May)

Survey n/a
Actual 247.7
Prior 245.7
Revised n/a

[comments]

[top][end]


Initial Jobless Claims (June 7)

Survey 370K
Actual 384K
Prior 357K
Revised 359K

Back up to the higher end of the ‘new’ range, as the 4 week average remains very steady.

[top][end]


Continuing Jobless Claims (May 31)

Survey 3118K
Actual 3139K
Prior 3093K
Revised 3081K

The highest report of this cycle, but still far below recession levels. Also, with GDP prospects looking up, the Fed is getting concerned that unemployment isn’t high enough to keep inflation in check.

[top][end]


Business Inventories (April)

Survey 0.3%
Actual 0.5%
Prior 0.1%
Revised 0.2%

Higher than expected and prior month revised up as well. At the point in the cycle this probably indicates inventory is being built to meet higher sales expectations, rather than inventory accumulating due to sales falling short. Inventories have been on the low side, and rebuilding them adds to GDP.

[top]