Close

This page had been redirected to a new URL, please update any bookmarks.

Font Size: A A A

macroblog

« Got Credit? Depends Who You Are | Main | The Wisdom Of Forecasting Crowds (Such As It Is) »

May 15, 2007

Settling In

At long last, we get an inflation report in which the expenditure-weighted distribution of individual price changes in the Consumer Price Index is almost centered on the actual average rate of inflation: 

   

Long_distribution

   

In case you haven't been following the saga of why we might actually care about that, April was the first month this year -- in quite some time, in fact -- that the majority of prices that contribute to the CPI haven't been rising in excess of 3 percent.  That was making me (and others) a bit nervous about which way the inflation scales might eventually tip.  For this month at least, things have settled in the right direction. 

In his regular inflation update, Brandeis professor (and former NY Fed senior VP) Steve Cecchetti explains why he thinks April's tip is likely to have staying power:

My favorite indicator of the medium-term inflation trend, owner equivalent rent (OER), continued to moderate, rising a mere 2.1 percent (a.r.) for the month ? well below it's recent readings that have been in excess of 4 percent.  Regular readers of this update may recall last year when I was warning that rises in OER would eventually push core inflation over 3 percent.  Well, that hasn't happened and I have a theory about where I went wrong.  At the time, my logic went like this: Over the past 5 years, resale prices of houses have risen far faster than rents, opening up a significant gap between the two.  My sense was that house prices were likely to languish, perhaps even fall modestly, so that the lion's share of the gap would be closed by a step-up in the rise of rents.  What I failed to see was that the combination of a high inventory of unsold new homes, combined with increased mortgage defaults could flood the rental market.  It is the glut of rental houses that is holding OER down now and is likely to continue to do so in the foreseeable future.  The result will be falling CPI inflation.

Falling to where is the relevant question I suppose.  The return to a more normal price distribution has brought the median CPI measure of core inflation back in line with other core measures, which are giving pretty consistent signals that the trend rate of inflation is in the 2 to 2-1/2 percent range:

   

Table_1

Table_2

So, it does feel more and more like the threat of rising core inflation is passing.  On the other hand, it doesn't feel much like the promise of falling core inflation is waxing.  Is that good enough?

May 15, 2007 in Data Releases, Inflation | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c834f53ef00d835507fa469e2

Listed below are links to blogs that reference Settling In:

Comments

Following the former NY Fed VP Steve Cecchetti and recognizing the current 25% of the CPI basket this housing proxy represents, I too am surprised that OER continued to rise even with that housing inventory bulge.
Tis the lag affect...the OER is down this time, but actually I have no idea that rents really did increase less this time, on the basis of those empty houses that need occupants to keep the vandalism down...along with the grass.
No, this time I think they just needed a smaller OER stat, so penciled it in...I'm not sure how they adust the 25% weighting but I think it might be similar.

Because the unions are whipped there is a major lack of excitement in this Inflation War, no?
I think JDH might be right about crude never coming back down, but energy along with food costs are not core for an economy that is full of obese people driving gas guzzlers.

Posted by: calmo | May 16, 2007 at 12:27 AM

Think of the HPA/OER dynamic as mean-regressing. Rent yields are at trough and most likely will reach peak before the cycle is over. This can be accomplished through rising rents, falling home prices, or a combination of both (differential positive inflation in each would take much longer than the normal mean regressing cycle).

So if OER is to be held down in the future by vacant home inventories, that implies negative HPA. Its quite possible, though, that OER will continue to rise even while HPA is negative: the reason is that would-be homeowning landlords cannot cover carrying costs at current rental yields, and therefore must sell rather than rent. For the same reason, yield-oriented buy-to-rent investors are not yet buyers of homes -- the current rental yield still implies much of their return will come from HPA, which is of course in doubt.

Much of the debate over OER misses the mean-regression dynamic of rental yields.

Posted by: David Pearson | May 16, 2007 at 09:08 AM

If Steve Cecchetti "missed" because he failed to see the calamity caused by lending huge amounts to those who had NO ability to repay even the interest due, isn't it reasonable he's ALSO wrong about how little home prices are likely to fall? Unless, maybe he thinks it's a wise economic plan for Fannie, Freddie & our banks to further subsidize those same borrowers?

Last I heard OER data is STILL being collected via telephone questionaire, with hints supplied to those homeowners who have no clue as to what they COULD rent their homes for. Given that almost 70% of our housing units are owner-occupied, many in areas far away from rental units, why do Economists rely SO heavily on such suspect numbers to support arguments so biased in favor of money center bank interests?

Isn't it time for the FED to lead an effort to update our statistical methods & measurements with data regularly collected & reported in our capitalistic process?

It doesn't take a genius to see our Gov't is spinning ever faster out of control. Anyone look at the bubbling DOW lately? If not, look no further than Fannie's decision to support highly inflated housing prices by subsidizing the very same homebuyers who were loaned enormous amounts of money without providing any record of earnings and credit history or even any savings. What about those who didn't buy, those who were prudent, honest (they didn't lie about earnings) & didn't fall prey to the unscrupulous sales pitches of the fast talking funny money mtg. pushers?

Where are the Economists concerned about the long-term effect of our Government's profigate macro-economic policies?

Posted by: bailey | May 16, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in