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.

“…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.

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.