A decline in the price of housing services has been at the center of the long-standing narrative dismissing the significance of this years long stickiness in inflation. Unfortunately, those hopes are less tenable than ever in this cycle. In April, housing experienced its highest month-over-month PCE increase since at least the beginning of 2025. This sticky inflation is unlikely to cool while housing inflation remains elevated.

Thus, the long-awaited rate cuts that new Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh was supposed to deliver for the President seem quite remote. Financial markets do not even have a rate cut among the range of possibilities this year. The CME FedWatch tool shows the odds of a rate cut at less than 1% going all the way out to July, 2027. The odds of a rate HIKE push above 50% starting with the January, 2027 meeting (see the red circle in the upper right corner of the chart below).

Meanwhile, loose financial conditions per the Adjusted National Financial Conditions Index (ANFCI) suggest the case for rate cuts remains quite weak.

Bonds Push Gold to the Sidelines

Typically, this is the point where I celebrate gold as a good buy in the face of increasing inflation risks. However, the bond market woke up to increasing inflation risks after the war started. For example, a day after the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) broke down from a 4-month high on the first wartime trading day, SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) also broke down.

Both TLT and GLD have been in downtrends ever since the war started (interest rates increase when bond prices decrease). While TLT printed a sharp bottom last week thanks to a sudden drop in oil prices, gold continued to fall.

As long as financial markets expect the Fed’s next move to be a rate hike, I expect GLD to trade poorly. Right now, GLD is precariously perched at an important support formed from the convergence of the 200-day moving average (DMA) (the blue line above) and GLD’s former all-time high from October, 2025. GLD experienced an impressive bounce off the horizontal support line in late March. However, given the definitive failure at resistance at the 50DMA (the red line), I expect the current tepid bounce to give way to continued weakness in GLD.

Thus, I am staying away from buying back into GLD until it can achieve a breakout above 50DMA resistance. In the meantime, I continue to accumulate TLT in anticipation of a day off in the future when yields come down definitively.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long TLT

The post From Sticky to Streaky, Inflation Looms Larger appeared first on Inflation Watch.

Services was the biggest driver of December’s core PCE with a 3.5% year-over-year jump. Services has been a consistent contributor to inflation’s stickiness. The biggest components within services were housing and utilities, recreation services, and financial services and insurance. Each of these components were also top drivers of services PCE inflation a year ago, so I fully expect them to continue to remain elevated…and worrisome.

Why Does the Fed Prefer PCE over CPI?

The general public and financial media pay much more attention to the CPI than the PCE. So it is easy to understand how a hot PCE number got little attention among the tariff headlines. However, the Fed cares more about PCE because it is a more comprehensive measure of inflation than the CPI. The PCE relies on business surveys that include expenditures made on behalf of consumers. In an explainer, the BEA provides the following example:

“For example, the expenditure weights for medical care services in the CPI are derived only from out-of-pocket expenses paid for by consumers. By contrast, medical care services in the PCE index include those services purchased out of pocket by consumers and those services paid for on behalf of consumers—for example, medical care services paid for by employers through employer-provided health insurance, as well as medical care services paid for by governments…”

This distinction is particularly important since the Fed spends a lot more time talking to businesses (like in the Beige Book) than to consumers.

Gold probably got both messages: sticky/heating inflation and fresh economic chaos. The SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) bounced perfectly off support at its 20-day moving average (DMA) (the dashed line) and followed through with a 2.7% gain to start the trading week.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long GLD calendar call spread

The post The Fed’s Favorite Inflation Measure Leapfrogs the CPI appeared first on Inflation Watch.

The CPI components suggest that inflation’s glide path through the “final mile” will remain sticky. Services less energy services rose 0.4% in January and are up 2.9% year-over-year. Shelter increased 0.2% on the month and 3.0% over the past year. Medical care services rose 0.3% in January and are up 3.9% year-over-year. These service categories continue to keep core inflation above the Fed’s target.

Progress is real. The chart below shows core CPI has finally taken an incremental step to a lower inflationary regime. Yet the path lower remains gradual and sticky.

The Tariff Effect on Core Goods

The CPI for commodities less food and energy commodities increased 1.1% year-over-year and remains a key contributor to overall disinflation. This category could contribute to even lower inflation this year if the U.S. avoids enacting new tariffs.

In Liberty Street Economics, the New York Federal Reserve published a quick study that demonstrates a tariff incidence of roughly “94 percent” in the first eight months of 2025 and “86 percent” by November, meaning the vast majority of tariff costs showed up in import prices paid by U.S. consumers. The average tariff rate rose to about 13 percent, and tariffed goods experienced price increases of roughly 11 percent relative to comparable untariffed goods. Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted at the January press conference on monetary policy that inflation could be closer to target absent tariff effects. This study provides supporting data.

However, from a policy of economic warfare, tariffs have likely achieved a primary aim: a significant reduction in imports from China. The study pointed out that “in the first eleven months of 2025, China’s share of U.S. imports fell by another 5 percentage points, slipping below 10 percent”. Chinese imports accounted for nearly 25% of U.S. imports in 2017 and declined to around 15% in 2024 following the tariff increases implemented in 2018 and 2019.

The inflationary consequences of tariffs could be secondary to this strategic goal. Importers have shifted supply chains to blunt the otherwise inflationary impact of the higher tariffs. The general disinflationary environment during the first round of tariffs also likely helped embolden today’s heightened tariff regimes.

The strategic objective may be clear. The inflationary implications are less so.

Are Tariffs an Enduring Inflationary Force?

The New York Fed study does not argue that tariffs create a self-sustaining inflation spiral. It documents substantial pass-through into prices during 2025. If no new tariffs are enacted, year-over-year comparisons will eventually absorb this price shock. Base effects alone would allow the tariff impulse to fade.

However, continued or expanded tariffs would introduce new price-level increases. Repeated rounds would transform a one-time adjustment into recurring upward pressure on core goods. Ongoing uncertainty around tariff policy remains a significant wildcard. Persistent uncertainty could encourage firms to raise prices preemptively in anticipation of future cost increases.

Reluctant Disinflation

Disinflation is underway, but the path for the final mile to 2% remains sticky. This phase can best be described as reluctant disinflation, the mirror image of sticky inflation.

The bond market remains broadly unconcerned about renewed inflationary pressure. Bond prices rose following the CPI release. After gaining 1.3% ahead of the report amid rising equity volatility, the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) added another 0.5% after the data. With TLT trading well above its upper Bollinger Band – a signal of short-term extension – I took profits on a large TLT position.

In recent weeks, I have shifted toward buying dips and selling rallies in TLT rather than fading strength. As long as the bond market remains confident that inflation will continue moderating, my inflation hedge remains concentrated in commodities as the U.S. in particular positions itself to run the economy hot with lower interest rates, high investment, and fiscal stimulus.

Be careful out there!

The post Core Inflation Softens, but the Final Mile to 2% Remains Sticky appeared first on Inflation Watch.

FXA rode the economic tailwinds to a breakout for a 15-month high.

Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) suggests that the unemployment rate has likely peaked at October’s 4.4% with December’s reading at 4.1%.

Even more important for monetary policy, the consumer price index (CPI) in Australia is above the RBA’s target 2-3% range. After dropping as low as 1.9% last year, the CPI suddenly rebounded above the RBA’s target range. Improving economic numbers will thus threaten to keep inflation higher than target if the RBA does not pivot to a tighter policy stance.

And then there are commodities, the core of Australia’s economy. Companies like iron ore producer Rio Tinto have enjoyed strong rallies to start the year as investors wake up to the economic realities of massive infrastructure and energy investments to support the AI boom along with the increasing attractiveness of physical assets as major countries pile on more and more debt. I started accumulating RIO in October and included the stock on my shopping list for 2026. So far, the price action has yet to deliver any kind of buyable dip. The strength of these commodity plays suggests that commodity-rich economies are going to experience upward pressure on their currencies. The breakout in RIO aligns well with the breakout in the Australian dollar.

Conclusion

All signs point to continued strength in the Australian dollar. A pivot in monetary policy will all but confirm a bias higher for the currency. Moreover, Australia looks relatively more attractive as a country versus major economies like Japan and the U.S. where policy and political turmoil along with mounting debt levels could keep those respective currencies under constant pressure. My main question now is how and when will fresh buying opportunities come.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long FXA

The post Australian Dollar Breaks Out As Economic Winds Blow Toward Rate Hikes appeared first on Inflation Watch.

Still, after the dust settles on this meeting, I fully expect the Fed to stay the course with a rate cut in December. Powell’s statements belie a Fed that is both gradually (some reluctantly?) accepting the case for looking through inflationary pressures and getting incrementally more worried about the labor market.

Division Translates Into Balking

Powell acknowledged strong disagreements among the Committee members. He teased a reveal in the upcoming minutes from the meeting, but the Fed vote says plenty. Recent appointee Stephen Miran unsurprisingly wanted a 50 basis point cut in a repeat of his dissent in the September meeting. Kansas City Fed governor Jeffrey R. Schmid delivered a dissent at the other end with a vote for leaving rates unchanged. Thus, it is easy to imagine the Fed currently holds a broad enough range of opinions on the direction for monetary policy to cause a pause in December.

In response to a reporter’s question about division in the Fed, Powell pointed out that Committee members have different forecasts and different levels of risk tolerances which come through in their speeches. Most importantly, Powell revealed that “there is a feeling in some we should wait.” Since there was just one vote for waiting during the latest meeting, I assume Powell referred to waiting instead of cutting in December – a not so subtle hint that the Fed as a group may already prefer not to cut in December.

The Case for A December Cut Still Looms

However, the hesitancy to cut in December directly contradicts Powell’s assessment of the economic situation. Powell noted that the current rate is above the neutral rate (“wherever it is”). Thus, policy is technically restrictive. Importantly, Powell ascribed the cooling in the labor market and the economy to restrictive policy. So if the Fed has truly adopted the mission to focus on addressing the downside risks in the economy, the Fed must stay biased to cut rates. At this point, the Fed will have a very difficult time explaining how it can “stand by” and watch a weakening economy and labor market.

While there remains upside risk to the Fed’s inflation mandate, Powell makes a weaker and weaker case every meeting that the Fed is truly concerned about that risk. He said plenty to indicate that the prospects for inflation are contained and even tame. Here were his main points on inflation:

• Most measures of long-run inflation expectations remain consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation target.
• Services inflation is coming down
• Higher tariffs are pushing up inflation as one-time increase in the price level (the base case)
• The core PCE (personal consumption expenditures, the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation) without tariffs would be 2.3% or 2.4% without tariffs, not far from the 2% target.
• The tariff-driven increase in goods prices is happening within the longer-term context of goods deflation.

Thus, once the base case of a one-time effect laps the inflation readings, the Fed should be comfortably close to its target.

While Powell reiterated that the Fed is determined to make sure that the inflationary impact of tariffs is indeed a one-time increase in the price level, the overall picture painted by Powell makes inflation look well-contained. The implied upside risk from the uncertainties in tariff policy hardly seem noteworthy in Powell’s updated narrative.

On the other hand, Powell claims there is “no significant deterioration” in the economic data. While Powell pointed out that the downside risks to employment have risen, he did not express any concern for the highly publicized mass layoffs from big companies like Amazon.com (AMZN) and United Parcel Services (UPS). In response to a question about these layoffs, Powell only said that the Fed is watching these developments, and the layoffs do not yet show up in the initial claims data (of course not – these layoffs are recent announcements).

Overall, Powell sums up the labor issue as low hiring and low firing in the context of immigration policies shrinking the labor supply and a cyclical drop in the participation rate in the workforce. When asked how then will rate cuts help the job market, Powell responded that cuts will make sure the “labor market doesn’t get worse.” Upon hearing that explanation, I felt tingles of recessionary risks.

Inflation Warnings from Overseas?

While Americans are mostly focused on the inflation risks from tariffs, inflation is also proving stubbornly sticky in other major economies who are not at war with the global economy. For example, with inflation at 3.8% in the United Kingdom, the Bank of England is further away from its 2% inflation target than the Federal Reserve is from its target. In its last letter explaining the on-going inability to hit the target, the BoE reported:

“The recent increase in CPI inflation has owed largely to food prices and administered prices, including water bills and Vehicle Excise Duty. A reduction in total labour cost growth also appears to have been delayed by the increase in employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs) and pay growth in sectors with a large share of employees at or close to the National Living Wage (NLW).”

Yet, the BoE expects this year’s inflation increase to peak in September. The combination of a weakening labor market and restrictive policy is expected to help push inflation toward the 2% target next year. This is the UK version of hopeful monetary policy. The BoE just made its last rate cut in August, going from 4.25% to 4.0%. The policy rate was left unchanged in the last meeting.

Earlier this week, inflation in Australia hit its highest point in over a year. With inflation now above the Reserve Bank of Australia’s target band of 2-3%, the RBA will likely need to put a pause on its easing cycle. The Australian Bureau of Statistics identified housing, recreation and culture, and transport as the main drivers of inflationary pressures. A likely pause in easing further strengthened my case to stay long the Australian dollar (FXA).

I am now on heightened alert for sticky inflation becoming a global problem that justifies an extended run for the debasement trade.

A Pause in the Debasement Trade

As the Fed expresses hesitancy about cutting rates again in December, the debasement trade took a major pause going into the Fed meeting, perhaps in anticipation of a less dovish Fed. Given I think the Fed will feel compelled to proceed with cuts in December, I consider the pause in the debasement trade to be even more temporary than the inflationary pressure from tariffs. I have treated this sharp pullback as the buying opportunity I have (mostly) patiently waited for. When parabolic rallies finally lose steam, the pullbacks are often swift and steep. I am looking for support to hold for the SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) by the $350 level where the 50-day moving average (DMA) (the red line in the chart below) awaits testing.

Bond yields understandably spiked higher in response to the Fed’s balk on rate cuts. However, I am no longer interested in trying to fade rallies in the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF as I now accept that the bond market’s overall trajectory is to worry much more about imminent economic weakness than lingering inflationary pressures.

The bond market is giving the Fed a green light for rate cuts. Thus, today’s balking should gradually transition to acceptance in the coming weeks.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: short GLD put, long GLD calendar call spread, long UPS, long AMZN put spread

The post Powell Balks At the Next Step of Hopeful Monetary Policy appeared first on Inflation Watch.

“…shelter costs, a third of the CPI. Think about the chicken and the egg. If if the Fed lowers rates, you wind up having lower mortgage rates. You wind up having lower CPI, right. So for me, they’re enforcing that higher CPI by not cutting rates. So if you could cut rates a third of CPI comes down, a third of CPI comes down….Used car prices. Why aren’t used car prices moving down? Interest rates. So you have mortgage rates, interest rates for used car prices. Everything that the Fed is doing is fostering higher prices”.

Almost as surprising was that no one challenged this flawed understanding except to object to the use of the transitive rule (if A = B and B = C then A = C). Even CNBC’s famous bond expert Rick Santelli joined the discussion and failed to correct these assertions. (Fortunately, he agrees that inflation is a problem for the Federal Reserve). I am guessing these assertions were not ad hoc and came from somewhere that others consider to be an authoritative source, so I feel compelled to offer a correction.

First of all, the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) started phasing out financing costs from the CPI in the early 1980s. At the time, the Fed was fighting inflation with aggressive rate hikes and the inclusion of financing costs in the CPI made it hard to explain monetary policy. Thus, the current definitions of items in the CPI exclude financing costs both implicitly and explicitly. The BLS describes the inclusions and exclusions for the CPI in “Consumer Price: Concepts” where it explains that “interest costs and finance charges are…out-of-scope”.

Financing Costs Are Not Consumption Goods

Shelter costs are not based on the price of a home or its financing. Instead, the BLS uses Owner’s Equivalent Rent (OER) which is the amount a household would have to pay to rent their home.

“Using the sample of rental units, the CPI program calculates a measure of price change for each CPI index area for the rent and OER indexes. The first step is standardizing the collected rents so that all rents are on a monthly basis. These standardized rents are called normalized rents. The normalized rents are then adjusted for any quality changes such as an additional bedroom or bathroom, changes to the type of heating and cooling equipment, and changes in extra charges such as an increase in total pet fees. The CPI program also adjusts rents for the effect of aging over time. Rents are collected for the same housing units every 6 months. Consequently, each time the CPI observes the rent of a sample unit, it is 6 months older. To account for this aging, an age-bias factor is applied to the previous rent.”

There is nothing in the definition that mentions mortgage rates. The BLS considers the mortgage as part of capital and not consumption.

“Interest costs (such as mortgage interest), property taxes, real estate fees, most maintenance, and all improvement costs are part of the cost of the capital good and are also not treated as consumption items. These non-consumption costs of owned housing are out of scope for the CPI under the cost-of-living framework that guides the index.”

Similarly then, the cost to finance a car, used or new, is also the cost of the capital good and is excluded from the CPI. Here is the core of the BLS’s explanation for measuring the inflation for new vehicles:

“The new vehicles index is estimated using a transactions dataset purchased from J.D. Power that includes observed transaction-level prices and detailed vehicle information. Each observation includes a transaction price as well as a set of 40 variables including rebate values and vehicle characteristics. Sales tax rates are applied by BLS for index calculation….

The BLS also relies on prices from J.D. Power to calculate an inflation rate for used vehicles and does not include financing costs.

Hot and Sticky Inflation

While various pundits torture the data to make specific points about the insignificance or transitory nature of today’s inflation, the core CPI is actually trending higher. The upward trend confirms the bottom telegraphed by the July Beige Book.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Consumption Expenditures Excluding Food and Energy (Chain-Type Price Index) [PCEPILFE], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEPILFE; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items Less Food and Energy in U.S. City Average [CPILFESL], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPILFESL, September 11, 2025.

From my perch, I still see all systems go for hot and sticky inflation. I see only additional inflationary pressures from rate cuts. Turkey learned this lesson, and much of the Federal Reserve acknowledges (or used to acknowledge?) the inflation risks. But we are officially climbing the stairs of hopeful monetary policy…hoping that the rate cuts can heal the employment market faster than it can stoke higher inflation.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: no positions

The post Financing Costs Do Not Impact Calculated Inflation appeared first on Inflation Watch.

In his speech at the annual Jackson Hole confab, Powell acknowledged that “with policy in restrictive territory, the baseline outlook and the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance” (emphasis mine). In normal times, with this ever so slight tweak in Powell’s inclinations and probabilities coming at the end of a long explanation of the balance of risks to inflation, employment, and the economy, this concession could be interpreted as another tease in the on-going suspense and fight over rate cuts. Instead, a stock market ever more eager for rate cuts built a temple from a single stair step and responded with one of the biggest expansions in market breadth that I have ever seen.

Maintaining high odds of a September rate cut will effectively force the Fed to cut. However, if Powell stays on message – “monetary policy is not on a preset course” – then the September rate cut could easily lead to a major disappointment. The Fed’s voting majority may not be ready to promise a sustained rate cutting cycle because inflation remains a nagging problem for the Fed.

Even before the tariff drama, trauma, and noise, inflation was proving itself sticky and stubborn. Now, core CPI (Consumer Price Index) and core PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditures), the Fed’s preferred inflation measure, look like they have bottomed. Core CPI has even started heading upward largely thanks to a lift in services inflation. As a result, not only is the Fed looking to cut rates well short of its 2% (core PCE) target but also just as inflation’s downtrend is taking an extended pause.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Consumption Expenditures Excluding Food and Energy (Chain-Type Price Index) [PCEPILFE], retrieved from FRED; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items Less Food and Energy in U.S. City Average [CPILFESL], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, August 25, 2025.

A suddenly very hot Producer Price Index (PPI) from July promises that subsequent CPI reads will not deliver inflation relief.

Moreover, tariff-driven inflation is already showing up both in the anecdotes from business leaders, earnings reports, and the Fed’s own research. Moreover, even though the Fed Funds rate is still in restrictive territory, financial conditions are not tight. In fact, financial conditions were last this loose right before the Fed belatedly started hiking rates in early 2022.

All together, these stories provide cautionary tales for rate cuts. The confidence I observe in the “rate-cutters” shows insufficient deference to the stagflationary possibilities in the economy. Powell characterized the potential as “a challenging situation” after he finished explaining how “in the near term, risks to inflation are tilted to the upside, and risks to employment to the downside”. This position between a rock and a hard place motivates me to tighten my grip on my position in Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF (GTIP).

A Swirl Of Claims and Counterclaims

At this point, every one has an opinion on what the Fed needs to do. I have taken note of some key interviews and speeches to portray the painful complexity of the task ahead for the Federal Reserve. Anyone who claims with confidence that the Fed should do “X” is glossing over some part of this picture.

Cleveland President Beth Hammack Leans Against A Rate Cut

Interviews like the one with Cleveland President Beth Hammack formed part of the reason the stock market got caught leaning away from Powell’s first step on the stairs of hopeful monetary policy. A day before Powell’s speech, Hammack insisted that “with the data in hand right now, if the meeting was tomorrow, I would not see a case for reducing interest rates”. She warned that her “biggest concern is that inflation has been too high for the past 4 years. And right now it has been trending in the wrong direction [see chart above]. It’s important we stay modestly restrictive to make sure inflation is brought back under control” (Hammack’s predecessor expressed similar concerns earlier in the month).

Hammack also worried that the inflationary impact of tariffs are just getting started and will continue into Q1 and Q2 of next year given the timing of contract renewals. These worries did not sound like the setup for an incrementally conciliatory Powell.

Hammack also stated that “financial conditions are broadly supportive of the economy” (consistent with the ANFCI). Moreover, she is “not hearing interest rates are a huge problem”. The builders and businesses building new plants in Hammack’s district are complaining just as much about the cost of materials and labor as they are about high interest rates. In a case for future inflationary pressures, manufacturers in the Cleveland district have been buffering price increases but cannot not sustain the hits “forever”.

I surmise Hammack will vote against a rate hike in September. Will she suddenly find herself on the dissenting side of the ledger?

Former St. Louis Fed President Jim Bullard Bolsters Candidacy As Next Fed Chair

Candidates for position of the next Fed Chair share a common trait. They think tariffs will not cause lasting inflation and support cutting rates right away. Former St. Louis Fed President Jim Bullard is a recent add to the candidate list. In a CNBC interview on August 12, Bullard insisted tariffs do not cause inflation. Tariffs are a tax and taxes do not cause inflation (a common equivalence). He pointed to data showing very muted effects and claimed that tariffs are not interrupting the longer-term trend to 2% inflation. Like other supporters of rate cuts, Bullard is looking well beyond the current swirl of data and glancing at the top of the stairs of hopeful monetary policy.

Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran Asks “What Inflation”?

Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran is also on the list of potential candidates to next head the Fed. Miran appeared on CNBC the same day as Bullard to discuss the economy. By narrowing his view to inflation since inauguration, Miran calculated a 1.9% annualized rate of inflation (I assume this was a reference to headline inflation). He further insisted that there “continues to be no evidence whatsoever of tariff-induced inflation”, and he implied that there will be no evidence for future impacts either. Ultimately, exporters will bear the cost of tariffs because they are the least flexible part of the supply chain; Americans will just buy elsewhere or make formerly imported goods domestically (do exporting countries doing deals understand their ultimate doom?).

When asked about the bottoming in core inflation, Miran dismissed the dynamic because tariffs are not the culprit. Miran pointed to used cars and airfares as core drivers. He went on to finger illegal immigration for boosting rents by 4-5%. Thus, net services inflation will go to zero because of the current crackdown on illegal residency.

Miran stands confidently at the top of the stairs of hopeful monetary policy. I am guessing he is a front-runner in the race for Fed Chair.

Gold Paralyzed With Indecision?

The price of gold has largely stopped responding to the back and forth in inflation-related data and opinions on monetary policy. While the SPDR Gold Trust (GLD) increased 1.1% in the wake of Powell’s first step on the stairs of hopeful monetary policy, GLD remains firmly stuck in a 4-month trading range. A technical “bearish engulfing” pattern in April continues to loom over the trading action as a top. Still, I am betting on GLD responding bullishly to the next rate cut just as it did to the last one. GLD is up 30% after initially selling off in response to what was thought to be a hawkish rate cut at the time.

I have been holding a GLD calendar call spread for the last half or so of this trading range while rolling forward the expiring short ends of the spread. I plan to convert this position to an outright call spread ahead of the September Fed meeting.

Be careful out there!

The post Powell Places His First Step On the Stairs Of Hopeful Monetary Policy appeared first on Inflation Watch.

In his latest press conference on monetary policy, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell reaffirmed the central bank’s dominant message: tariff-driven inflation must not evolve into persistent price pressure. The Fed must ensure tariffs result in no more than a one-time price shock, as has so often been advertised. The Fed is maintaining a restrictive policy stance, “modest” in Powell’s opinion, not to suppress growth unnecessarily, but to guard against the risk that a one-time shock becomes embedded in inflation expectations.

Powell described a uniquely difficult moment for the Fed and monetary policy. “This is a special situation with risks to both of the goals,” he said, referring to the Fed’s dual mandate of maximum employment (currently met) and price stability (inflation remains above target). The policy response: stay in position, gather more data, and avoid premature action. “We see our current policy stance as appropriate to guard against inflation risks,” as Powell stated in his prepared remarks.

These stances form “Powell’s promises.”

Tariff Inflation: Short-Lived or Sticky?

During the press conference, Powell made clear that the central bank does not see inflation from tariffs as systemic, but it must remain vigilant. “Higher tariffs have begun to show through more clearly to prices of some goods,” he acknowledged. While the base case remains a one-time price level shift, Powell acknowledged, “it is also possible that the inflationary effects could instead be more persistent, and that is a risk to be assessed and managed.”

That task—managing a potentially durable inflationary impulse from trade policy—is Powell’s focus, along with the majority of the Fed. The Fed is collecting evidence as companies pass costs to consumers, raising the risk that inflation expectations begin to drift. “Near-term measures of inflation expectations have moved up… on news about tariffs,” Powell noted, though longer-term expectations remain anchored for now.

In the press conference Q&A, Powell was more direct:

“A pretty reasonable base case is that this is a one-time price increase. We will make sure that’s the case.”

Policy Outlook: Restrictive, Yet Watchful

In support of its goals, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) left the federal funds rate unchanged at 4¼ to 4½ percent, and continued its balance sheet reduction plans. Powell emphasized that this positioning is intended to give the Fed space to observe, not react hastily, a message consistent with past meetings:

“For the time being, we are well positioned to learn more about the likely course of the economy and the evolving balance of risks before adjusting our policy stance.”

Although the Committee’s policy rate remains in “modestly restrictive” territory, Powell flagged a disconnect by observing that “financial conditions are accommodative.” In other words, the economy is not acting as if monetary policy is holding the economy back. (I wish Powell spent more time unpacking this apparent paradox). When a reporter pointed out weakness in the housing market, Powell reminded the audience that the Fed looks at the economy’s performance as a whole, in its totality. However, his claim that the Fed cannot impact housing supply is only partially true. High loan costs can undermine the economics of some housing projects. These loan costs usually follow the Fed funds rate.

A Measured Mandate: No Rush to Cut

Despite the slowing of inflation from its mid-2022 peak, Powell emphasized that it “remains somewhat elevated.” Core PCE inflation rose 2.7 percent over the 12 months ending in June—nearly unchanged since the start of the year. While services inflation continues to ease, goods prices are rising under tariff pressure, motivating the majority of the Fed to hold rates steady.

In response to dissenting votes from two members (Bowman and Waller, who preferred a rate cut), Powell praised the clarity of the debate:

“What you hope is that people explain their positions clearly and that’s what we had. We had one of our better meetings…This was a good meeting today.”

Powell offered high praise for this meeting—likely an effort to stave off media speculation about Fed acrimony or debilitating disagreements. Powell emphasized that “the majority of the committee is of the view inflation is above target and employment at target, so policy should be more restrictive.” He reiterated this simple formula to make the case plain. He deferred to the dissenters to make their cases in coming days.

To further underscore the majority’s case, Powell suggested that the Fed is already “looking through” goods inflation simply by not raising rates. I am sure that commentary raised at least a few eyebrows given how hawkish it sounds at a time when everyone is looking for the date rate cuts resume. Ultimately, Powell insisted that tariffs “will not turn into inflation, as we will make sure it won’t.” He also cautioned that the Fed must act “efficiently”. If the Fed cuts too soon, a resurgence of inflation would sent the Fed scrambling to raise rates again (a scenario that does not concern dissenter Waller). If the Fed waits too long, then it will allow unnecessary damage to the labor market (this is the scenario that concerns Waller most).

The Renovation Sideshow

The press of course had a questions about the tensions with President Trump and a gathering cacophony of his administration. Powell, as always, was quite dignified in his responses. However, his description of Trump’s recent (and awkward) visit the suddenly controversial renovations contained some backhanded commentary. Powell called the visit a good one, an honor. He added that it is not often a President comes by the Fed for a visit, especially to see a building. In other words, not only was Trump’s visit unusual, but also it was a bit comical. I wish the occasion allowed Powell to smile and crack more direct jokes.

A week and a half ago, the Federal Reserve posted a short video explaining the renovations. A lot of the work involves upgrades to meet government safety and security standards (like blast proof windows) and to preserve historic features. Who knew such work could create such a stir and build a case for firing a Fed Chair?

Conclusion: One Shot at Containing Price Pressure

Powell’s framing of the Fed’s challenge is both strategic and cautionary. Tariff inflation must remain a one-time shock, not a repeat offense. At the same time, the Fed cannot overlook the labor market’s fragility.

“Our obligation is to keep longer-term inflation expectations well anchored and to prevent a one-time increase in the price level from becoming an ongoing inflation problem.”

With risks pressing on both sides of the mandate, the Fed’s current posture is one of active restraint—willing to move, but unwilling to guess.

The post Powell’s Promises: Containing Tariff-Driven Inflation and Risks to Dual Mandate appeared first on Inflation Watch.

Each Fed region told slightly different stories about their respective inflationary pressures. A few regions are even enjoying some type of price stability for now. Still, the anecdotal evidence on the whole supports the notion that tariffs cause prices to rise and the price impacts can cascade in uncertain ways.

Boston

Boston produced benign inflation commentary. Prices may be stabilizing. According to the Boston observers: “Most contacts expected to hold their own prices steady for the rest of the year, as some perceived strong consumer resistance to further price increases. Tariffs were expected to drive seafood prices higher going forward, but risks of rising inflation were mentioned less frequently than in the previous report.”

New York

The commentary from New York was the exact opposite of Boston. Perhaps reflecting a higher rate of international commerce in the New York region, this region delivered some of the sharpest inflationary commentary: “the pace of input price increases remained steep as tariff-related cost increases were widespread. Many businesses reported continuing to pass on some or all tariff cost increases to their customers.” Tariffs drove up the costs of steel inputs and auto parts. While businesses indicated there are limits to their ability to pass on prices – “businesses expected substantial increases in input prices in the months ahead, but more moderate increases in selling prices” – one retailer reported a creative solution by raising prices on products with inelastic demand. This pricing strategy could gain popularity as tariffs push higher prices across the economy and businesses scramble to accommodate without crushing demand.

Philadelphia

This region reported some pricing pressures in the forms of discounts from the retail, tourism, and residential construction sectors. The pricing pressures facing builders have slowly increased this year. One firm even received price relief on insurance for the first time in a few years. While tariff-related pricing pressures have been lower than expected so far, businesses expect larger tariff impacts in coming months.

Cleveland

Perhaps because of heavy industries with a dependence on highly tariffed inputs, Cleveland seems to be getting hit hard by cost pressures: “contacts’ reports indicated that nonlabor input costs continued to rise at a robust pace in recent weeks and that the cost stabilization seen during 2024 had dissipated.” The strong pace of price increases in imported, tariff-impacted materials and tariff-impacted retailers leads contacts to generally expect “costs to grow at a strong pace in the coming months.” The banking, professional, and business services sectors have even experienced higher costs for technology, including AI and data security. (Cleveland was the only region to report such higher costs, but I doubt they are or will be the only one hit given the broad need for this technology). Firms in Cleveland are raising prices to respond to tariffs, but they are somewhat constrained by price sensitivity in their marketplaces.

Richmond

Richmond had little to say about prices. The most notable comment came from a firm that has suffered increased costs throughout its business: “One manufacturer said that input costs were higher in recent months due in part to tariffs but also from rising regulatory, insurance, and labor costs, including wages and benefits.”

Atlanta

In Atlanta, businesses are trying every trick in the book to manage tariff-related risks and price pressures: sharing costs between suppliers and customers, changing supply chains, drawing down on pre-tariff inventories, pre-emptive price hikes, and wait-and-see. I expect this broad palette of strategies to unfold nationwide.

Chicago

Business in Chicago expected the same pace of inflation going forward as the “moderate” rate they saw from late May to June. Higher material costs were the highlight for manufacturers surveyed in the region.

St. Louis

Businesses surveyed in St. Louis described a mix of absorbing the increased costs of tariffs and passing along higher costs to customers.

Minneapolis

Beating Boston, Minneapolis had the most benign commentary on inflation. Businesses in Minneapolis actually reported a slower pace of inflation than the previous month. This region quantified its survey as follows:

• About a quarter of District firms increased the prices they charged to customers in June from a month earlier.
• About the same percentage anticipated increasing their prices in the month ahead.
• Slightly less than half of respondents reported increased input prices over the previous month.

Kansas City

Profit margins shrank in Kansas City as businesses were not able to pass on the full extent of increased input costs. Companies may have absorbed all they can at this point given “some firms reported they are planning broad-based price increases across product lines to maintain profitability.”

Dallas

Despite a range of reports of higher costs for input materials, “expectations for 12-month price growth eased slightly in June compared to March.”

San Francisco

Inflationary pressures remained the same from the June to the July Beige Book. The pressures are also broad-based: “Price increases were reported across a wide range of industries.”

Inflation Will Stay Resilient

On balance, the Beige Book confirms that, at best, inflation going forward will hang around current levels. Gone is the glide path downward that reassured the Fed about cutting rates. The June CPI report suggests that inflation has bottomed out. A nudge from tariffs could put in place a new uptrend as higher price levels settle out through the country.

The Fed is unlikely to hit its 2% inflation target anytime soon.

The Noise

While inflationary pressures build, pressures build on Chair Jerome Powell o resign or get fired. The drumbeat of acrimony now seems like a lot of noise. Like the tariff drama, trauma, and noise, the Powell versus Trump drama is mainly headline fodder until something happens. Wednesday’s (July 16) news was case in point. Headlines screamed Trump was ready to fire Powell, bonds fell, and then Trump refuted the rumor. The iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) almost tested its low for the year before rebounding sharply.

I used the sharp dip to buy TLT $87 call options expiring in August. The trade bets on another relief rally following a sharp sell-off. I expect to return to fading rallies in due time.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long TLT calls

The post July Beige Book Reinforces A Bottoming in CPI appeared first on Inflation Watch.

(Source: Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product. Complete statistical tables available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics)

In cutting its cash rate for the second time during this easing cycle, Bullock called the move a “confident” cut. As the chart below demonstrates (Source: The Reserve Bank of Australia, Consumer Price Inflation – G1), Australia’s inflation has returned to pre-pandemic norms. Bullock described a broad-based slowing in price increases, leading to a forecast for “the underlying pulse of inflation around the midpoint of the 2 to 3 per cent range over the next year or so.” With that trend firmly in place, she concluded: “with inflation declining and the unemployment rate relatively low, we’re well positioned to deal with” the challenges presented by the U.S.’s trade war with the rest of the world.

(Full inflation data at Consumer Price Index, Australia)

Stable Inflation Enables Renewed Easing of Monetary Policy

The U.S.’s trade war threatens renewed inflation pressures through global supply chain disruptions. The RBA is monitoring these developments closely, forecasting “growth in our major trading partners slowing over the remainder of this year and next year.” At the same time, it has revised its domestic growth forecast expecting the economy to grow “a little more slowly,” and sees “global trade developments” as mostly deflationary—aside from inflationary supply shocks from the trade war. These factors underlie the RBA’s confidence in continuing the rate-cutting cycle.

The RBA has also been transparent about its easing bias. Bullock noted: “if we were just looking at where the domestic economy was at the moment, would we be looking at lowering rates or not, and as I said earlier with inflation in the band and also employment doing pretty well, we think there is a bit of scope to lower interest rates.” Even with labor market tightness, she added, “it does seem that inflation is continuing to come down notwithstanding a bit of tightness in the labour market.” Moreover, “inflation is right on target from a six-month annualised point of view.”

Looking ahead, the RBA sees conditional room for further easing: “I think if we continue to observe inflation coming down and staying down sustainably, then to the extent that we think there’s still restrictiveness in monetary policy—and we think there is a bit—then that would give us opportunities to lower the interest rate further.” However, Bullock acknowledged that renewed strength in consumer demand could change the equation: “If it looks like things pick up much more quickly than we thought they would… then all the cost pressures that the businesses are saying, well, they might be able to pass them on. That might be the risk on the upside, and the question there would be for us: are we still restrictive enough to keep that under control or do we need a bit more restrictiveness?”

Risks: A Fog of Unpredictability

Still, global and domestic risks remain. Bullock was frank about the external backdrop: “the situation we’re in is it’s not just uncertain, it’s actually unpredictable.” While the Federal Reserve has remained frozen—on high alert for stagflation—Australia is benefitting from a policy window (that may close in unpredictable ways).

Domestically, the RBA continues to monitor labor market imbalances. Bullock noted that “employment growth, the participation rate, vacancy rates, all these sorts of things are suggestive of the labour market still being quite tight.” On the other hand, consumption has not yet responded as expected to rising real incomes and falling rates: “We’ve been a little bit surprised that consumption hasn’t recovered as real incomes have started to recover. It’s just a bit softer than we thought it would be if you think about historical relationships. We thought it would have done better. So that’s the risk, that households for some reason are being much more cautious than they have been in the past and that that is a downside for the economy.”

The RBA has also shown intellectual flexibility in revisiting its assumptions: “we are open to the idea that we may be overestimating, or underestimating full employment, and I think that’s a healthy thing for us.”

Even amid these uncertainties, Australia’s anchored inflation and resilient labor conditions help reinforce the Australian dollar’s appeal as a mispriced asset in a volatile global landscape.

Trade Shocks: The Global Wildcard

Although Australia has a handle on its domestic picture, external shocks remain a major variable. Bullock acknowledged that the RBA, “just like everyone else, was completely blown out of the water by the scale and the scope” of the U.S.’s trade war. “So we really had to go back and have a much harder look. So there has been a lot of analysis done… and the Board does have to consider and factor much more of this into their thinking than was the case back before this all happened.”

While the RBA braces for future trade war storms, the U.S. Federal Reserve is in the center of the storm. The Fed is bracing for staglfationary impacts from the trade war and, as a result, remains stuck with inaction even as current inflation falls further from the Fed’s policy rate. Australia, by contrast, enjoys the flexibility of acting on current data and trends.

Conclusion: A Value Currency with Upside

Australia is entering a policy sweet spot: inflation is within target, the labor market remains robust, and GDP growth is beginning to recover. The country’s policy flexibility and economic trajectory stand in contrast to that of the U.S., where a hawkish Fed is constrained by future inflation expectations and geopolitical risk.

From a currency trading perspective, the Australian dollar looks as a value currency—undervalued after years of economic drag and monetary tightening…even with concerns about Chinese growth.

The following weekly chart of Invesco CurrencyShares Australian Dollar Trust (FXA) (currency pair AUD/USD) shows 14-year pressure on the Australian dollar versus the U.S. dollar. assuming the pandemic lows hold, the time looks ripe for a sustained turnaround.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long AUD/USD, long AUD/JPY

The post Inflation at Target and GDP Growth Recovery: A Comeback Case for the Australian Dollar appeared first on Inflation Watch.