Tag: monetary policy

Hot September Employment

Posted on by peter.c.rupert

By Paul gomme and Peter Rupert

The BLS announced that payroll employment increased 254,000 in September (plus 72,000 in upward revisions over the previous two months), solidly beating the “forecasts” that hovered around 150,000. Before the report many had talked about the slowing of the labor market, such as this from CNBC:

September’s jobs picture is expected to look a lot like August’s — a gradual slowdown in hiring from earlier this year, a modest increase in wages and a labor market that is looking a lot like many policymakers had hoped it would.

Well, looks like policy makers didn’t get what they hoped for! In fact it looks more like a gradual increase in hiring over the past four months. The private sector led the charge, increasing 223,000, the second highest reading since May of 2023.

Private sector service jobs increased 202,000 with health services and social assistance rising 71,700 and leisure and hospitality jumping up 78,000, the highest since January, 2023. Declines were seen in manufacturing of both durable goods, down 3,000 and non-durable goods down 4,000.

Average hours of work fell from 34.3 to 34.2, so that total hours of work fell 1.5%. Average hourly earnings climbed to $35.36 from $35.23. The growth in hourly earnings continues to outpace CPI inflation, meaning real wages are rising.

The household survey shows an employment increase of 430,000 and the number of unemployed persons fell 281,000. The labor force increased 150,000. The unemployment rate declined from 4.22% to 4.05%. Curiously, in its press release, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said that the unemployment rate was little changed between August and September.

Earlier this week, the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) was released and showed little change in job openings, hires and separations. There are still more job openings than the number of unemployed persons.

Overall, the labor market continues to defy the press who seem to be constantly trying to show the economy is softening. No signs here. What will this do to the outlook for the Fed’s next steps? The labor market is also at odds with the Fed, at least in terms of their last statement,

Recent indicators suggest that economic activity has continued to expand at a solid pace. Job gains have slowed, and the unemployment rate has moved up but remains low. Inflation has made further progress toward the Committee’s 2 percent objective but remains somewhat elevated.

Looking at the very first graph on this post, one can see that job gains have been increasing over the past several months and the unemployment rate actually fell this month. With the strong GDP numbers and this strong labor market outcome it may shift the thinking that inflation pressures could/might/will be increasing. Was the recent 50bp cut too much too soon?

August Inflation

Posted on by peter.c.rupert

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the consumer price index (CPI) increased 0.2% over the month on a seasonally adjusted basis. On an annualized basis, the CPI increased 2.27%, up 0.41 percentage points from July’s 1.88%. The year over year reading was 2.59% which is down 0.33 points from the 2.92% recorded in July. One way to think about the fall in the year-over-year inflation rate is that it’s the average of the current and past 11 months’ monthly inflation rates. Consequently, the decline in the year-over-year inflation rate can be attributed to dropping the 6.32% monthly inflation rate from August 2023 while adding the lower 2.27% for August 2024. Our preferred trend measure came in at 1.87%. While the trend number looks pretty good on the surface at 1.87% it has been creeping up over the last few months: 1.58% in June, 1.68% in July and now 1.87% in August.

The core (ex food and energy, CPIX) measures tell a slightly worse story, with the annualized number hitting 3.42%, the year over year up 3.26% and our trend measure up 2.68%. There were very large declines in the monthly numbers for energy products: gasoline down 0.6%, fuel oil down 1.9% and energy services down 0.9%. Used cars and trucks also saw a large decline of 1.0%.

Chairman Powell has all but promised “Christmas in September” in the form of a cut in the Fed funds rate. Moreover, given the relationship between the CPI measures and the Fed’s preferred Personal Consumption Expenditure core measure means that this measure of inflation will likely show an increase when it’s released in a couple of weeks. While the unemployment rate has been creeping up, real output growth has been robust. (If the US is deemed in some dire situation with a 4.2% unemployment rate, pity Canadians with their 6.6% rate) In our humble opinions, the current inflation data do not warrant such a cut, much less the 50 basis point cut hoped for by some commentators.

August Employment Report

Posted on by Paul Gomme

On September 6, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its employment report for August. According to the Establishment Survey, the US economy added 142 thousand jobs in August. In addition, the previous two months were revised down, -61 in June and -25 in July. The Household Survey put the gain at 168 thousand jobs.

From the Establishment Survey, the leisure and hospitality sector added 46 thousand jobs; construction 34 thousand jobs; and health care 30 thousand jobs. Sectors losing jobs were led by manufacturing (24 thousand) and retail trade (11 thousand).

Average weekly hours rose from 34.2 to 34.3 so that total hours of work increased by 4.7%. Average hourly earnings increased 0.4%, from $35.07 to $35.21.

The unemployment rate, derived from the Household Survey, fell marginally, from 4.25% to 4.22%. (The headline numbers are touting a decline from 4.3% to 4.2%.) However, a broader measure of the unemployment rate which includes marginally attached individuals rose between July and August, from 7.8% to 7.9%.

Policy Implications

Is strength or weakness in the eye of the beholder? Or rather, in the data of the beholder?

Given the signaling from members of the FOMC, it’s pretty clear that the committee will lower the Federal funds rate at its next meeting later in September. Speculation is growing that the committee may deliver a 50 basis point reduction rather that `just’ a 25 point reduction. The case for a more aggressive loosening of monetary policy lies on the real side of the economy. Where does this weak real side show up? Maybe in the employment numbers reported above. Yet, the same report shows a slight decline in the unemployment rate and a 48 thousand decline in the number unemployed. The labor force increased by 120 thousand. As mentioned above, wage growth was fairly strong and total hours increased substantially. Second quarter real GDP growth was revised up from 2.8% to 3.0%. Considering that US population growth is running around 0.5% per year, real per capita output growth for the second quarter is around 2.5% which is well above its long run average. Meanwhile, while PCE inflation has fallen, it is still a bit above the FOMC’s 2% target.

July Employment Report

Posted on by peter.c.rupert

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The BLS announced that employment rose by a very subdued 114,000 according to the establishment survey, 97,000 of which came from the private sector. The bulk of the increase came from Health Care and Social Assistance sector, increasing 64,000. Moreover, there were 29,000 fewer employees over the past two months than reported earlier, as May was revised down 2,000 and June revised down 27,000.

Average hours of work fell from 34.3 to 34.2. Given the weak increase in private sector employment and the decline in average hours meant that total hours of work fell about 2.6%.

To be sure, the July employment report is disappointing. The figure below plots the change in nonfarm payroll employment since 1947. To this figure, we’ve added a red dot when the change in employment was at most 114,000 (as in the most recent jobs report), and the economy was in an expansion. (We’ve excluded a few months around the start of the pandemic because these employment changes were so extreme.) The bottom line is that the US has often had weak job reports in the midst of expansions. The point being that looking only at one monthly report may be very misleading. Indeed the Fed has mentioned this in other contexts:

The Committee does not expect it will be appropriate to reduce the target range until it has gained greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward 2 percent.

July 31 FOMC Statement

The unemployment rate, based on the household survey, rose to 4.25% from 4.05% in the previous month. Digging deeper into the unemployment data reveals that much of the increase in the unemployment rate in 2024 has been due to a combination of workers losing jobs, and workers reentering the labor market, the labor force grew by 420,000. Keep in mind that reentry may be an artifact of the rules for counting an individual as unemployed which includes a notion of active job search. According to the jobs report, in July there were 4.6 million individuals who were not in the labor force but who want a job, an increase of 346,000. When these marginally attached individuals are included in the ranks of the unemployed, the unemployment rate is nearly 8%, not the official 4.3%.

Once again there are many in the media showing the possibility that the economy is heading toward a recession. Note: definitionally, it has to be true that if we are currently not in a recession we are heading toward one since recessions do frequently occur (but have become much less frequent, see the recessions graph below. At any one time there are usually both positive and negative signs. For example, how much weight should one put on a one month decline? Or a one day decline in the stock market? Jeremy Piger uses data to infer the probability the economy is in a recession, as of July 26, the probability that we were in a recession in June was 0.26%. That said, there will be inflation reports before the next FOMC meeting, but at this point it looks more likely there will be a rate cut in September, barring any large increases in inflation.

Q2 GDP and June PCE

Posted on by peter.c.rupert

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

On July 25 the BEA announced that the advance estimate of real GDP increased 2.8% in Q2 on an annualized basis. The gains were fairly widespread, except for residential and non-residential structures, that fell 1.4% and 3.3%, respectively. Personal consumption expenditures, PCE, increased 2.3% and was the largest contributor to overall growth, at 1.57 percentage points.

PCE price index

On July 26, the BEA announced that the personal consumption expenditures, PCE, price index increased 0.95% on an annualized basis. Our preferred trend measure came in at 1.9%.

The Fed’s preferred measure, the PCE ex food and energy came in at 2.2% on an annualized basis while our trend measure came in at 2.6% and has continued to fall for the last 5 months.

As we have mentioned many times before, we believe our trend measure better captures the path of inflation and, more importantly, implications for Fed policy. For example, the annualized monthly change was higher in June, 2.2%, than in May, 1.5%. It seems pretty obvious that the Fed will not change its current stance on policy given this one month blip.

Policy Discussion

No doubt, there will be a lot of chatter about whether the FOMC should lower the Fed funds rate at its July 30-31 meeting, or wait until September. Or something else. To wade through all this, it helps to have a framework to organize thoughts about the incoming data. Arguably, the so-called Taylor rule has the broadest acceptance in the economics-policy profession. Briefly, the Taylor rule says that the Federal funds rate should be set as: (a) the natural real interest rate plus (b) the target inflation rate (2%) with (c) an upward adjustment when actual inflation exceeds target and (d) a downward adjustment reflecting slack on the real side of the economy. Typically, this slack is measured by either the output gap, or the unemployment rate gap. It’s easiest to understand why one of these gaps is included in the Taylor rule by thinking about what happens when there’s a negative gap. In the case of the unemployment rate, the idea is the demand for labor is high. Consequently, either firms will have to offer higher wages, or workers have more bargaining power and can command higher wages. Either way, these nominal wage channels put upward pressure on prices through some sort of “cost push” channel. This could be as simple as firms pricing using a constant markup over their (marginal) costs. In the case of a negative output gap, the story is that demand is outstripping supply, and firms find it easier to raise their prices. Returning to the Taylor rule, the idea is that these gaps reflect future inflationary pressures, and that the FOMC should respond now to head off future inflation.

There’s a lot of wiggle room in the Taylor rule. First, one needs an estimate of the natural real interest rate. The Atlanta Fed’s Taylor rule calculator provides eight (8!) choices for the real interest rate, currently ranging from 0.7% to 2.5%. That said, a given measure of the real interest rate does not change much over time.

Second, how to think about the deviation of inflation from target? As mentioned above, we like our trend measure which has moved down in 2024. The Taylor rule would, then, prescribe a lower Fed funds rate. But that prescription depends on the FOMC having religiously followed the Taylor rule over the past few years — which it almost certainly hasn’t. Nonetheless, some commentators may suggest that it’s time to start lowing the Fed funds rate since PCE inflation has come down in 2024.

Third, how to measure real-side slack? The output gap is given by potential output less actual output. The problem here is the nebulous concept of “potential” output. The fact that FRED has a potential GDP series is of no comfort. (“Fake data!”) To be absolutely clear, the output gap is a made-up number. Similarly, the unemployment rate gap is the difference between the “natural unemployment rate” and the actual unemployment rate. Some may substitute NAIRU (the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) for natural unemployment rate, but it’s the same basic idea. As with the output gap, there’s the problem of measuring the natural unemployment rate. (“More fake data!”) Between the output gap and the unemployment rate gap, the Atlanta Fed provides 18 (yes, 18!) measures of real-side slack. What’s does the Taylor rule say should be happening with the Fed funds rate based on recent real-side data? Currently, estimates of the output gap are positive: there’s slack in the economy which tends to push down the Taylor rule’s prescription for the Fed funds rate. The strong growth in the second quarter is likely to cut the size of this gap (unless of course, potential output is revised!) which calls for a higher Fed funds rate. On the other hand, the unemployment rate has increased, and so the unemployment rate gap has increased which, through the Taylor rule, would call for a lower Fed funds rate.

TLDR: Inflation is coming down; the Taylor rule dictates a lower Fed funds rate. The output gap has narrowed; raise the Fed funds rate. The unemployment gap increased; lower the Fed funds rate.

So, here is the rub, even with the most widely used model at hand, it offers little guidance as to what to do next. Indeed, there is way too much wiggle room to come to a coherent and consistent policy recommendation.

June CPI

Posted on by Paul Gomme

The June CPI numbers point to lower inflation. On an annualized month-over-month basis, CPI inflation fell from 0.07% to -0.67%; core CPI inflation dropped from 1.97% to 0.78%. The year-over-year measures recorded more modest declines, from 3.25% to 2.98% for CPI and 3.41% to 3.28% for core CPI. As we have emphasized in past posts, the monthly inflation rate is quite volatile while the annual inflation rate is slow to reflect changes in trend. For June, our measure of trend CPI inflation plunged by 1.1 percentage point to 1.58% while trend core CPI inflation fell 0.8 percentage point to 2.46%

Policy Implications

In about two weeks, the PCE deflator for June will be released. If our trend core PCE inflation falls by the same 0.8 percentage points that core CPI inflation fell, then trend core PCE inflation will sit at 1.8% – comfortably below the Fed’s 2% target. Alternatively, CPI inflation tends to run about 0.5 percentage points higher than PCE inflation. On this basis, one might expect our trend core PCE inflation for June to come in at 2.1% – just outside the Fed’s 2% target. Chairman Powell’s testimony earlier this week raised expectations of a rate cut this year, although the chairman was silent regarding the timing. Given the declines of the recent numbers, it appears that the Fed has pretty much achieved its longer run inflation goal. The real side of the economy seems to have been mostly unaffected by the rapid increases in the fed funds rate. The FOMC next meets July 30-31. As this stage, the question is: will the FOMC lower its policy rate at the end of July, or wait until September? The debate will probably hinge on what are the potential costs of cutting rates in July, if any? Stay tuned.

Inflation and GDP

Posted on by Paul Gomme

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The BEA has released PCE (personal consumption expenditure) price data for April. By all measures we look at, this measure of inflation is down. While the annualized monthly core PCE inflation rate dropped from 4.08% to 3.03%, our measure of trend only fell by 0.17 percentage points, from 3.53% to 3.35%. The reduction in our trend core PCE inflation is in line with that reported earlier for the April trend core CPI inflation rate (a drop of 0.2 percentage points). While the year-over-year core PCE inflation rate continues to fall, and run below these other measures of inflation, we anticipate that the year-over-year rate will start rising as the favorable monthly inflation rates in mid-2023 fall out of the calculation of the annual inflation rate.

The picture is largely similar for overall PCE inflation: a large drop for the month-over-month rate and more modest declines for the year-over-year and our trend measures.

The rapid increase in the Fed Funds rate from mid 2022 to mid 2023 and the decline in inflation now has the Fed Funds rate higher than the inflation rate and, more often than not, tends to keep inflation at bay. Note that after the Great Recession the inflation rate was above the Fed Funds rate longer than at any time since the 1960’s.

Earlier, the BEA released its second estimate of GDP for the first quarter of 2024. Output growth for that quarter was revised down slightly from 1.6% to 1.3%.

In the perverse world of monetary policy, slowing GDP growth is considered good news in the sense that so-called inflationary pressures are thought to be easing. Nonetheless (core) PCE inflation is still running above the Fed’s 2% target. Interest rate cuts appear to be some time off in the future.

Inflation Report

Posted on by peter.c.rupert

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The BLS announced the January inflation report on February 13, indicating that the CPI rose 3.73% in January on a seasonally adjusted annualized basis. This was much larger than December’s increase of 2.83%. As we have mentioned several times, the one month number is extremely volatile and therefore should not necessarily be a sign of trend inflation on the rise. Having said that, our preferred measure of trend inflation also increased slightly from 2.73% to 3.06%.

A large part of the increase came from the shelter component rising over 7% and is about 36% of a household’s expenditures. Energy components fell somewhat. Yet, core CPI inflation rose from 3.35% in December to 4.81% in January (monthly annualized rates). Our measure of trend core CPI inflation also rose, from 3.43% to 3.89%.

The only bright spot to the CPI report is that year-over-year inflation declined. However, as we learned a couple of years ago, this measure is very slow to respond to changes in trend.

What does the CPI report imply for policy? To start, the Fed’s 2% inflation target is for core PCE (personal consumption expenditures) inflation, not (core) CPI inflation. PCE data for January will not be released until February 29. While the year-over-year core PCE inflation rate for January may fall, based on higher trend CPI inflation, it seems likely that trend core PCE inflation will likewise rise. The Fed will probably want to see a steady decline in underlying inflation toward its target before lowering its interest rate. It seems unlikely that the Fed will be lowering rates soon.

December CPI

Posted on by Paul Gomme

The December CPI (Consumer Price Index) report, released by the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) is bad news on the inflation front. By almost any measure, CPI inflation is up. By our recently discussed “constant gain” measure of trend inflation, it rose by 0.4 percentage points for the overall CPI, and by 0.15 percentage points for core CPI (excluding food and energy). On a year-over-year basis, overall CPI rose 0.2 percentage points while core CPI fell by 0.1 points. The figures below show that the one-month annualized inflation rates are also up.

For monetary policy, what presumably matters is not what’s happening with CPI inflation but rather PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditures) price inflation since core PCE inflation is what the Fed looks at. Although it is probably the case that the CPI works to influence the policy makers. The PCE data won’t be released for another two weeks. However, given the broad similarity in the goods covered by the CPI and PCE deflator, it’s a reasonable guess that (core) PCE inflation will also be up. If so, the Fed will be faced with some difficult choices: Do they treat December as (maybe) an aberration and stand pat, or will they view December as the harbinger of another inflationary pulse? Or, cognizant of the long and variable lags associated with the effects of monetary policy, will the Fed leave rates unchanged since they’re already added enough tightening? Having said that, the “trend” line has not risen by much and for the core is basically flat. Therefore, from a long and variable lag perspective it seems doubtful that the Fed will alter their current stance at the meeting at the end of the month.

October PCE inflation and GDP revision

Posted on by Paul Gomme

On November 30, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditure) data for October 2023. The BEA notes a small monthly change in the PCE deflator (0.6% at an annual rate, down from 4.5% in September), and that the 12-month PCE inflation rate came in at 3.0% (down from 3.4% in September). These numbers largely mirror the earlier CPI (Consumer Price Index) release: the annualized monthly change fell from 4.8% to 0.5%; the 12-month rate from 3.7% to 3.2%. We prefer to look at the 3-month annualized inflation rate which also fell, from 3.7% to 3.2%; CPI inflation fell from 4.9% to 4.4%.

The cognoscenti know that the Fed’s preferred inflation measure is so-called core PCE inflation (taking out the food and energy components). By this measure, the monthly inflation rate fell from 3.8% to 2.0%, a larger decline than recorded by core CPI (3.9% to 2.8%). The 12-month inflation rate fell by 0.2 percentage points, to 3.5%; core CPI inflation fell by 0.1 percentage point to 3.0%. While our preferred 3-month annualized inflation rate fell, it was essentially unchanged at 2.4%. In contrast, the 3-month annualized change in core CPI rose in October, from 3.1% to 3.4%

In summary, the PCE inflation numbers for October confirm what was seen in the CPI inflation reported about two weeks earlier: inflation is down. How much depends on which series you focus upon. Keeping in mind that CPI inflation tends to run about 0.5 percentage points higher than PCE inflation, the data for October suggest that the US economy is approaching the Fed’s 2.0% inflation target.

Gross Domestic Product (Second Estimate)

On November 29 the BEA announced that real GDP for Q3 was revised up from 4.9% to 5.2%. While revisions to nonresidential fixed investment and state and local government spending were the leading causes of the increase, consumer spending was revised down.

Policy outlook

Given the continued decline in the inflation numbers and the continued strength in the output numbers, it appears the economy has digested the record increases in the Fed Funds rate without roiling the real side of the economy. There seems little doubt at this point that Fed policy is achieving its inflation reduction goal and may have reached the peak of the Fed Funds rate during this cycle. That is, nothing in the data points to the need for further increases in the rate and the market is suggesting some rate declines in 2024.