Is something amiss in the energy statistics in today’s CPI update?
The question comes to mind after reading the press release for the report on consumer prices in February. In particular, the CPI’s “special” energy index posts a 0.5% decline for last month, which presumably is a contributing factor for why CPI inflation overall is reported as unchanged for February. Given all the chatter about inflation risk of late, the news that the CPI change last month was zero is surprising, at least to this reporter. Even more surprising is the reported decline in energy prices as per the CPI numbers, a drop that contrasts with the sharp increases in spot prices in February 2008 for four primary energy commodities, according to Barchart:
crude oil: + 11.0%
gasoline: +7.5%
natural gas: +12.5%
heating oil: +12.3%
The first step in trying to explain the gap is that the spot price changes are nominal fluctuations whereas the CPI energy index decline is “seasonally adjusted.” But adjusting for seasonality is, at best, only a partial solution since CPI’s “unadjusted” energy index also fell in February, albeit by a relatively modest -0.1%.
Daily Archives: March 14, 2008
RESPITE OR REVERSAL?
Today’s update on consumer price inflation brings good news for the trend in February, and not a moment too soon. CPI was unchanged last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. That’s a sharp deceleration from recent months.
“On a seasonally adjusted basis, the CPI-U was virtually unchanged in
February, following a 0.4 percent rise in January,” according to the Bureau’s press release. “Each of the three groups–food, energy, and all items less food and energy–contributed to the deceleration.”
Now begins the debate over whether the welcome news marks the end of the recent surge in pricing pressures that have been bubbling for the past year or so. It’s tempting to think that the inflation scare has passed and that it was all just normal CPI volatility within a range. Anything’s possible, of course, but we’re skeptical that it’s safe to ignore inflation risk from here on out. Still, one can’t fully discount the possibility that the pricing fires are cooling, if only temporarily. As always, only time will tell, leaving earthlings with the thankless task of speculating with incomplete information.
Ideally, our speculations are rooted at least partly in a sound reading of the data and a respect for market history. Even so, that leaves plenty of room for error, which is why our default position is always staying diversified, in varying degrees over time, in the primary asset classes.
To the extent that inflation factors into our strategic asset allocation, we remain suspicious that the danger has passed. Our skepticism begins with the old saw that one month a trend does not make. In any one period, the possibility for statistical noise is high–and that’s true for any data series. One can partially minimize the noise by looking at longer measures of change over time. By that standard, it’s hard to ignore CPI’s annual rate of change that, even with February’s flatlining, is still running above 4%. Although that’s down slightly from the recent past, a 4%-plus inflation pace is hardly benign.
Notably, it’s the general trend that offends. As our chart below reminds, the sharp rise in the annual change of CPI of late is at the core of our worries. Plotting the linear trend (as per the chart’s black line) reminds that pricing pressures have been on the rise for some time. Inflation in absolute measures still remains modest by historical standards, but we should remember that small brush fires can turn into something more if left unattended.
But if headline CPI offers compelling evidence to stay wary on inflation’s upside potential, the trend is more favorable if we restrict our analysis to core CPI, which excludes food and energy prices. Why would we do that? For starters, that’s the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation and, to be fair, the preference enjoys some historical rationale. The case for using core inflation as a benchmark for monetary policy boils down to the fact that in the past, core has been a superior predictor of future inflation than headline. That’s because food and energy prices were more volatile than the other components and so by looking at core one saw a clear, less statistically noisy inflation trend. In other words, prices bounced around a lot but over, say, five years they didn’t usually change much. The proof is that in the past, core and headline inflation have generally converged over time.