(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.

Tariffs Create Inflation Risk

While the administration goes back and forth on whether tariffs will create price increases, Powell is quite clear: “If the large increases in tariffs that have been announced are sustained, they are likely to generate a rise in inflation”. Powell further warned that these large tariffs will also likely lead to “a slowdown in economic growth, and an increase in unemployment”. This cocktail is the very definition of stagflation. Powell reinforced his implicit plea to end the tariff war by repeating his warnings during the Q&A session. For example, he emphasized that “given the scope and scale of the tariffs…certainly the risk to higher inflation, higher unemployment have increased.” As a result, the Fed “won’t see further progress toward our goals, but we might see a delay in that.”

To add credibility to the concerns, Powell referenced the consensus (emphasis mine): “If you look at where forecasters are, they’re all forecasting an increase in inflation.” Without admitting he fears the potential of a recession, Powell followed up by referencing “forecasts of weakening in the economy and some have recession forecast.”

Thus, if Powell was in charge of trade policy, he would not go down the current path of large tariff increases. The risks to inflation and of a weaker economy – aka stagflation – are too great.

These admonishments are made more remarkable given the on-going (and one-way) spat that President Trump has with Powell. Trump now calls the Fed Chair “too late Powell”. Trump piled on by calling Powell a fool after the latest stall on rate cuts. I suspect Trump sees the hidden messages in Powell’s commentary.

Waiting As Leverage

Given the standoff in risks, the Fed has no choice but to sit on the sidelines of policy. Firstly, the trade policies are uncertain and in flux. During the current 90-day pause, anything can happen, including a sudden collapse in the ceasefire or another 90-day pause to avoid all-out economic warfare. Once these uncertainties clear up, the Fed next must wait to see impact from the policies before it can venture to take action.

Yet, I think the Fed would be cutting rates if not for the tariff risks. During the Q&A, Powell let slip that the Fed could have been late in cutting rates last year: “I wouldn’t say that what we did last fall was at all preemptive. If anything, it was a little late.” Ironically, the tariff risks will definitely make the Fed late again. By the time the dust settles enough for the Fed to be confident in more rate cuts, the economy could be deep in the throes of weakness.

Still, there is an interesting angle in the Fed’s insistence on waiting. The U.S.’s massive budget deficits need to be financed at lower rates. This more favorable financing likely needs the assistance of the Fed, whether by coaxing the long-end of the bond market to come down with “follow the leader” federal fund rate cuts or something more direct like “Operation Twist.” The longer higher rates persist, the harder it will be for the U.S. to take major fiscal action like extending the massive tax cuts from 2017. Powell has insisted since the first pause on rate cuts that the Fed can afford to wait. In the latest meeting, Powell further emphasized the Fed can afford to wait. I counted 21 times Powell used the word “wait” or “await”, 3 times Powell referenced no need to “hurry”, and another 4 times Powell insisted on exercising patience. I see a Fed in stagflation planning mode when Powell insists “for the time being, we are well positioned to wait for greater clarity before considering any adjustments to our policy stance.”

The message to the White House? Provide clarity post haste. All this waiting is the Federal Reserve’s way of exercising leverage while disavowing interest in advising on policy.

Markets React: The Dollar, Gold, and Bond Yields

After the Federal Reserve’s statement, the U.S. dollar strengthened, gold weakened, and long-term bond yields went higher for the rest of the week.

The U.S. dollar index (DXY) is still rebounding off a 3-year low. So for now I am assuming that the dollar’s strength for the rest of the week was a residual from this bounce from “oversold conditions”. Currency traders are likely waiting for the next dramatic tariff headlines to resume selling the dollar. (I currently hold a mix of long and short dollar bets). The weekly chart below shows that at the peak of the tariff trauma and drama that the dollar index reached a level last seen in March, 2022.

Gold is even more intriguing. The SPDR Gold Trust (GLD) went on a near parabolic run for a week and a half in April. Such runs usually come to climactic ends. In GLD’s case, a bearish engulfing topping pattern signaled the end of the run. GLD attempted a rebound from support at its 20-day moving average (DMA) (the dotted line below), but it stopped cold right at its all-time high. Fed day brought GLD right back down to its 20DMA support. I suspect this support will eventually give way as the Fed’s latest insistence on patience translates into a slightly lower enthusiasm in buying gold as a hedge against a Fed forced to cut rates right into the teeth of tariff-driven inflationary pressures. Waning enthusiasm is likely only worth a test of uptrending 50DMA support (the red line).

Long-term rates have chopped around since December. However, based on the “heavy” technicals for iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT), rates look poised to head higher at some point. TLT is just one more bout of economic chaos away from a fresh swoosh downward. The lows of the year coincided with levels last seen in November, 2023.

Stuck Until Further Notice

By the time of the next Fed meeting in June, we should have a better idea about the success or lack thereof for the 90-day tariff pause. The pressure will only increase on Powell to speak clarity into monetary policy. If more economic and sentiment indicators are flagging increasing stagflationary pressures while trade policy remains uncertain, I expect Powell to get more strident in his warnings (in Powell’s mild-mannered way of course). In the meantime, the stock market looks poised to join the Federal Reserve in getting stuck. The S&P 500 (SPY) is in a cliffhanger trading right below 200DMA resistance for the month of May.

Be careful out there!

The post Powell’s (Not So) Hidden Plea to End the U.S.’s Tariff War appeared first on Inflation Watch.

Source: April 2025 Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey, Federal Reserve Bank Philadelphia

At the same time economic activity fell off a cliff, prices paid accelerated higher. A steady uptrend in prices paid was in place since last year, but in April they jumped to levels last seen in July, 2022. After spiking in January, the prices received flattened out. So the good news, for now, is that firms in aggregate are not passing along the surge in prices paid. Either firms are facing the reality of a loss in pricing power in a softening economic environment, and/or they are trying to wait out the current economic chaos. Either way, the underlying stagflationary pressures are roiling just under the surface for the manufacturing sector.

Note that since these measures are diffusion indices (see definition in the above chart), the magnitude of these effects is not visible. Still, given policymakers closely watch these economic surveys to inform policy, the stagflationary signals are sure to bleed out into monetary policy.

The Fed Trap

Based on the speeches from members of the Federal Reserve, the stagflationary signals are already bleeding into monetary policy. For example, concerns about stagflation appeared in Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s answers to questions in an interview at the Economic Club of Chicago last week.

“the administration…is implementing significant policy changes and particularly trade now is the focus and the effects of that are likely to move us away from our goals. So unemployment is likely to go up as the economy slows in all likelihood and inflation is likely to go up as tariffs find their way and some part of those tariffs come to be paid by the public. So that’s the strong likelihood…”

This economic bind has the Fed trapped between inflation and economic weakness. For now, all the Fed can do is hope for the best. Hope as monetary policy came through as Powell continued: “…my hope is that we’ll get through this and get back…we’ll be moving away from those goals [of maximum employment and price stability] probably for the balance of this year and then or at least not making any progress and then we’ll resume that progress as we can.”

The Fed is clearly not thinking about responding to the current economic chaos with price cuts. Powell insisted that “our role is to make sure that this will be a one-time increase in prices and not something that turns into an ongoing inflation process.” The Fed cannot contain higher prices and higher inflation expectations with rate cuts. Thus, the Fed will likely sit on its hands as long as possible in the face of weakening employment. I expect the Fed to resort to creative “Fedspeak” in lieu of action in the hopes stagflationary pressures will wind down on their own.

A GTIP Dip

Three weeks ago I made the case for buying the Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF (GTIP) as one way of meeting the investing challenge of a stagflationary environment. GTIP fell soon after that as long-term bond yields suddenly soared with waning confidence in the U.S. economy and the U.S. dollar. I used this period to accumulate GTIP at lower prices since I do not foresee long-term yields going much higher absent an extreme crisis of confidence. GTIP will get its next big test when April’s CPI rolls out next month. Will it demonstrate businesses restraining from passing along tariffs to end consumers? Will it warn of resurgent inflationary pressures? The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s April 2025 Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey suggests GTIP has tailwinds.

The Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF (GTIP) briefly dropped toward the bottom of its recent range.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long GTIP

The post An Early Look At Stagflationary Pressures appeared first on Inflation Watch.

Shmid warned that “while in theory, tariffs may have only temporary effects on inflation (although persistent effects on the level of prices) I would be hesitant to take too much solace from theory in this environment”. He tied recent tariff announcements to broader signs of economic stress, including “a decline in consumer sentiment and increases in near-term inflation expectations.” Schmid acknowledged that the current policy environment has become “considerably more complicated,” citing feedback from business contacts who see growing risks on both sides of the Fed’s dual mandate of maximum employment and stable prices.

Schmid’s skepticism around transitory inflation contrasts with recent remarks from Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who has leaned into a more reassuring message about the persistence of tariff-driven price pressures. In “Jerome Powell’s Fed Deftly Maneuvers Through a Stagflationary Minefield“, I admired Powell’s effectiveness in navigating a difficult policy landscape, but I also pointed out the problematic use of “transitory” to describe inflationary effects. Powell argued that “it can be the case that it’s appropriate sometimes to look through inflation if it’s going to go away quickly without action by us… and that can be the case in the case of tariff inflation.”

That assertion paralleled Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s line that tariffs are a “one-time price adjustment.” But as I wrote in “The Sleight of Hand Behind the ‘One-Time Adjustment’ and ‘Transitory’ Tariff Inflation Narrative“, for inflation to be transitory, expectations for price levels would need to revert after the initial tariff shock. Yet, “tariffs make price reversion unlikely by locking in a permanently higher cost base.” In that piece, I also pointed out how structural effects – such as wage responses, supply chain disruptions, and embedded cost pass-through behavior – make inflationary pressures from tariffs more persistent. Outcomes are also hard to anticipate as inflationary pressures cascade through the economy.

Schmid appears attuned to these systemic effects. He described “a marked increase in the upside risks around inflation along with elevated downside risks to the outlook for employment and growth,” and openly questioned the prudence of discounting these risks as fleeting. Unlike Powell, who focused on optionality and emphasized that longer-term inflation expectations remain anchored, Schmid directly acknowledged that business sentiment and price expectations are shifting in ways that could prove difficult to reverse.

Powell’s message was strategically designed to preserve policy flexibility and calm markets in the face of stagflationary fears, and in that moment, Powell succeeded. However, I remain concerned that Powell’s framing underestimates the lasting damage that tariff-related cost increases can impose on the economy. As I wrote in my critique, the idea of a “one-time adjustment” may be statistically correct but economically misleading. A new, higher price level, once established, may not simply fade away. The higher price level could reshape business behavior and household expectations for years to come.

Schmid seems to understand these risks. His closing words underscore the seriousness of the moment (emphasis mine): “With renewed price pressures likely, I am not willing to take any chances when it comes to maintaining the Fed’s credibility on inflation.” That statement signals a shift away from the complacency that defines the transitory inflation narrative on tariffs.

The Last Friendly Report on Inflation?

As the Fed slowly accepts increased inflationary risks in the future, the past provides fleeting reasons for optimism on inflation. While I have stuck by the persistent and sticky narrative on inflation, March’s CPI (Consumer Price Index) report signaled the potential start of the next leg down for core inflation…just in time for tariffs to pressure inflation upward again. From the report:

“The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.1 percent in March, following a 0.2-percent increase in February. Indexes that increased over the month include personal care, medical care, education, apparel, and new vehicles. The indexes for airline fares, motor vehicle insurance, used cars and trucks, and recreation were among the major indexes that decreased in March…

The all items less food and energy index rose 2.8 percent over the last 12 months, the smallest
12-month increase since March 2021.”

Notably, the shelter index was up 4.0% year-over-year.

The chart below suggests that, absent tariff inflationary pressures, core CPI would finally be on its last leg lower toward the Fed’s 2.0% target.

Ironically, this positive development in core CPI could give more confidence to policymakers in pressing forward with inflationary tariffs.

Bostic Concurs

In an interview on Marketplace, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Raphael Bostic, appeared to concur with Schmid’s concerns:

“I think the pressures that are out there are not the best for our mandates. All the models say that the introduction to tariffs is going to put upward pressure on prices, and I’ve seen more reports of recession fears in the media and from our business contacts than I’ve heard in a year and a half or two years. And so that’s also going to put pressure on our mandate, the employment mandate, in a way that is not positive.”

Bostic’s tiny source of solace is that “the current environment today might not be the current environment tomorrow.”

Currency Correction

Typically I conclude these inflation reviews by teasing out some implications and impacts in currency markets via the U.S. dollar. This time around, there are too many tariff-related cross-currents and too much economic chaos to directly connect dots. So, instead, I take this time to describe a “currency correction” I had to make on the Canadian dollar (USD/CAD) and the Mexican peso (USD/MXN).

A month ago I explained:

“I am short USD/MXN out of a belief that economic relations with Mexico are about as bad as they can get. I could of course get proven wrong in due time. On the other hand, I am long USD/CAD because I do not think the market fully appreciates how much weaker the Canadian economy will get as it tries to match the U.S. in this economic warfare.”

I was correct for almost two weeks, but in due time I have been proven wrong. I have now closed out both trades in order to reassess my next moves. Surprisingly, the Canadian dollar has proven quite strong against the Mexican peso. The exact opposite of my expectations. That chart below shows how CAD/MXN is breaking out from an approximate triangle or wedge type pattern.

Even more importantly, USD/CAD has broken below a key support level at the same time the U.S. dollar looks poised for a fresh, major breakout against the Mexican peso. In other words, in the last 2-3 weeks, I could not have been more wrong! (Note how the 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico defined a PEAK for USD/CAD, a classic contrarian move).

While USD/CAD broke support at its 200-day moving average (DMA) (the blue line), USD/MXN HELD 200DMA support. Thus, USD/MXN looks likelyly to head even higher while USD/CAD looks likely to head even lower.

This currency correction took me by surprise. The move likely reflects the effectiveness and the robustness of Canada’s current resistance to U.S. economic warfare. Mark Carney, the new Prime Minister of Canada, has been quite clear in laying out a framework of Canadian resistance. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tim Macklem, has been similarly forthright in laying out the implications for monetary policy and bracing Canadians for the economic warfare ahead. Apparently, both men have, so far, succeeded in bolstering Canada’s defenses (symbolically through the Canadian dollar). The implications for inflation both here and in Canada remain to be seen as trade slows down between the two North American neighbors and former allies.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: no positions

The post Inflation Concerns Rise at the Federal Reserve Amid Tariff Unease appeared first on Inflation Watch.

• 2025 GDP growth at 1.5-1.9% (down from 1.8-2.2% in December)
• PCE inflation at 2.6-2.9% (up from 2.3-2.6%)
• Federal funds rate at 3.9-4.4% (up from 3.6-4.1%). These adjustments allow for minimal rate cuts this year, preserving flexibility.

Despite rising near-term inflation expectations, Powell reiterated, “We do not need to be in a hurry to adjust our policy stance and we are well positioned to wait for greater clarity.” This approach sought to reassure jittery financial markets while preserving optionality, a critical balancing act as economic chaos and uncertainty intensifies. Specifically, Powell coolly presented two potential scenarios, supposedly neither of which will trip up the Fed:

“If the economy remains strong and inflation does not continue to move sustainably toward 2% we can maintain policy restraint for longer. If the labor market were to weaken unexpectedly or inflation were to fall more quickly than anticipated we can ease policy accordingly. Our current policy stance is well positioned to deal with the risks and uncertainties that we face in pursuing both sides of our dual mandate.”

Powell further argued that inflation expectations – while rising in the short term – are not shifting over the long run:

“We do see increases widely in short-term inflation expectations and people who fill out surveys and answer questionnaires are pointing to tariffs about that. If you look in the survey world, if you look a little further out, you really don’t see much in the way of an increase. Longer-term inflation expectations are mostly well anchored.”

Powell used this argument to suggest that short-term inflationary pressures, including tariffs, should not be mistaken for a structural return to high inflation. By insisting that long-term inflation expectations remain stable, Powell steered the conversation away from stagflation and toward a more benign interpretation of recent inflation trends.

However, Powell extended these reassurances too far by parroting Treasury Secretary Bessent’s claims that tariffs are a one-time and transitory inflationary impact. Powell insisted that “it can be the case that it’s appropriate sometimes to look through inflation if it’s going to go away quickly without action by us, if it’s transitory…and that can be the case in the case of tariff inflation.” I critiqued this explanation in “The Sleight of Hand Behind the ‘One-Time Adjustment’ and ‘Transitory’ Tariff Inflation Narrative“. While a tariff can impose a one-time price adjustment, that adjustment embeds higher costs into the economy. Powell himself acknowledged that consumers remain deeply frustrated by elevated price levels, stating, “The grocery bill is about past inflation really…they’re unhappy and and they’re not wrong to be unhappy that prices went up quite a bit and they’re paying a lot for those things.” It is exactly the higher price level that formed the core of my critique of dismissing tariffs as transitory. This deft maneuver worked in the moment as no one in the press pushed back and pointed to elevated price levels as being the future concern for tariffs now.

Powell also created uncertainty about the ultimate inflationary impact of tariffs: “we also hear that people are very reluctant to allow prices to go up. At the same time we hear that businesses are intending to pass many of these prices through. So it’s hard to say how this is going to work out.” Given this uncertainty, Powell should not suggest or even hint that tariff-driven inflation could be transitory. After all, the transitory framework failed miserably in 2021.

The market reaction to Powell’s messaging will be crucial in the coming weeks. Will Powell’s deft maneuvering and lack of urgency be sufficient enough to inoculate financial markets against the on-going, surrounding policy and economic chaos of rising inflation expectations, tariff-driven uncertainty, and fragile consumer sentiment? Powell’s ability to maintain flexibility will be tested as market participants digest his messaging. The next few weeks could determine whether his balanced stance reassures investors or leaves them scrambling for clarity all over again. For now, the immediate reaction in the stock market signaled a spark of relief.

The below 15-minute chart of the S&P 500 (SPY) provides the critical price levels traders need to watch in coming days for support and resistance during this bear market. Buyers celebrated with relief upon the release of the statement but ran out of gas at the intraday high of the week as Powell concluded the Q&A with reporters.

Conclusion

Powell successfully maneuvered what could have been a challenging press conference without committing the Fed to a firm policy shift. While he downplayed stagflationary risks and sidestepped concerns about persistently high price levels, worsening economic realities could eventually force Powell and the Fed to recalibrate this strategy under far more difficult market conditions.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long SPY

Note: this post was edited with the help of ChatGPT 4.0

The post Jerome Powell’s Fed Deftly Maneuvers Through a Stagflationary Minefield appeared first on Inflation Watch.

However, a systemic perspective greatly weakens claims of a one-time adjustment. Over time, tariffs can create a cascading effect through the economy, especially when tariffs are broadly applied across a wide swath of goods and services. Over time, tariffs can embed and entrench inflationary pressure in the economy from the following:

• Wage pressures – workers may demand higher wages to compensate for persistently higher consumer costs.
• Supply chain adjustments – companies may shift to more expensive domestic or alternative suppliers.
• Cost pass-through effects – producers adjusting pricing behavior in response to permanently higher costs as they enjoy greater pricing power amid a reduction in alternatives.

Moreover, successive rounds of tariffs, as the economy is experiencing now, amplify inflationary ripple effects, making them harder to unwind.

Still, that one-time adjustment is higher and persistent. So I am skeptical as Bessent also tries to resurrect “team transitory” when explaining the impact of tariffs. For inflation to be transitory, price levels would need to revert after the initial tariff shock. Tariffs make price reversion unlikely by locking in a permanently higher cost base unless offset by productivity gains, currency shifts, or supply chain innovations. Again, all else being equal, as long as the tariff is in place, someone is paying the cost, this year, the next year, and so on. The price increase will not disappear on its own accord. If you are still complaining about how much higher prices are now compared to 2019, you will find yourself complaining years out about the higher prices brought on by tariffs passed on to the consumer level.

Can pandemic-era inflation be described as a one-time adjustment? Of course. All we need to do is extend the time period over which “one-time” applies. The chart below shows the year-over-year change in the average annual CPI. Even if inflation slows to its pre-pandemic pace by 2026, the accumulated price increases remain, permanently raising the cost of living (of course, I have my doubts about the pace of inflation’s decline given the underlying stickiness of key inflationary components). In 2027, a casual observer could look back and conclude this inflationary era was a one-time price adjustment that lasted about 5 years. While the conclusion would be technically correct, the broad price level remains significantly elevated, straining household budgets long after the inflationary event passes. In other words, a “one-time adjustment” in this context is only academically meaningful.

Source: 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; March 7, 2025.

Terms like “transitory” and “one-time adjustment” do not speak to the direct and real-time impacts on consumers. These terms are sleights of hand to convince financial markets to look through the price dynamics. Consumers cannot look through these impacts. They must immediately adjust spending habits to account for the deterioration in spending power from tariffs, especially broad based ones (all else being equal).

Adjustments and Transitory Effects In Currency Markets

In foreign exchange, the Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso have served as ground zero for the current chaos over ever-changing policies on tariffs and economic warfare. However, overall, against the U.S. dollar, these currencies have stuck to a well-defined trading range. Against the U.S. dollar, the peso was trading at these same levels four months ago with a 5% trading range from bottom to top (excluding outliers). Against the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar was trading at these same levels three months ago with a 2.6% trading range from bottom to top (excluding outliers). On the biggest single-day of volatility, the day tariffs were delayed for a month right before they were scheduled to take effect, USD/MXN traded through a 4.7% range and USD/CAD traded through a 2.8% range. In other words, both currencies covered their entire range of volatility in one day.

These percentages are large in foreign exchange. The adjustments can be seen in the persistently elevated levels for both USD/MXN and USD/CAD. There is no transitory observation until the volatility dies down and/or the price adjustment itself reverses. In the meantime, I am short USD/MXN out of a belief that economic relations with Mexico are about as bad as they can get. I could of course get proven wrong in due time. On the other hand, I am long USD/CAD because I do not think the market fully appreciates how much weaker the Canadian economy will get as it tries to match the U.S. in this economic warfare. Combined, these two trades are good pair trades where I collect interest income from USD/MXN as I wait. Week-to-week volatility in USD/CAD allows me to execute a few swing trades.

Epilogue

Last week I spent more time understanding the economic theories and frameworks espoused by Bessent. The interview at the Economic Club of New York with Larry Kudlow was educational in that respect. Unfortunately, the recording started after the commentary on tariffs. Minus the cheap shots, the rest of the interview is worth watching and understanding.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long USD/CAD, short USD/MXN

The post The Sleight of Hand Behind the ‘One-Time Adjustment’ and ‘Transitory’ Tariff Inflation Narrative appeared first on Inflation Watch.

I faded the move in bonds as nothing about the December CPI print changed the fundamental narrative of sticky inflation and a cautious Fed or even the prospect of soaring U.S. budget deficits. I speculated on weekly SPY put options as a hedge. I fully acknowledge that the stock market has spent a year and a half or more adjusting to every hiccup and bout of angst over the inflation narrative.

The chart below demonstrates that the eye must strain hard to see a change in the profile of core CPI. We will have to wait until later this month to see whether the softer than expected core CPI also bends core PCE off its uptrend from its last trough.

Sources: 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; 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; January 15, 2025.

The volatility index (VIX) well represented the stock market’s huge sigh of relief over inflation. The VIX plunged 13.9% and brought an end to the most recent uptrend.

Shelter Inflation Continues Trending Down

Shelter inflation, along with services inflation, has been a key culprit in stubbornly sticky inflation. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) pointed out that “the year-over-year change in the shelter index remained below 5% for a fourth straight month and posted its lowest annual gain since January 2022, suggesting a continued moderation in housing inflation.” Shelter inflation has even been on a definitive downtrend since peaking in March, 2023. Unfortunately, the current trajectory may be too slow for comfort in terms of its impact on aggregate core CPI.

Shelter inflation dropped from 7.5% in December, 2022 to 6.2% in December, 2023 and now 4.6% last December. If this nearly linear pace continues, shelter inflation will be around 3.2% next December, right around where core CPI currently sits. Thus, other components will still need to do some heavy-lifting in coming months to meaningfully push core CPI, and presumably core PCE, closer to the Fed’s 2.0% target.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Shelter in U.S. City Average [CUSR0000SAH1], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; January 16, 2025

An Oil Breakout

Oil prices are not part of the core CPI, but its recent breakout has caught my attention. A continued, persistent rise in oil prices could bleed into higher inflation expectations for consumers. Such a dynamic may further motivate the Federal Reserve to sit on its hands with monetary policy. A 3.3% gain in the United States Oil Fund (USO) sent the ETF to a 2 1/2 year high.

A Spike In Short-Term Inflation Expectations?

Every month, the New York Federal Reserve publishes a survey of consumer expectations. This survey includes various measures of inflation expectations. The 1-year median expected inflation rate for consumers stayed around 3.0% for all of 2024, consistent with the narrative of sticky inflation. However, a potentially interesting blip happened in December where the median point prediction jumped from 3.0% to 3.8%. The median point predictions are typically higher than the median expected inflation rate, but they rarely diverge and almost never by such a wide margin. The accompanying press release does not refer to this surprising 1-month behavior, but I cannot help speculating on its significance. I will be watching to see whether this point projection manages to lead the median expected inflation rate higher or whether it snaps back to the typical relationship. Either way, such a jump is surely not positive for inflation in the near-term.

The Trade

I continue to maintain a strategy of fading rallies in TLT. Going into the CPI I owned a single February TLT $85 put option “just in case” CPI produced a fresh upside surprise in inflation. Now I can accumulate TLT put options at more attractive prices. TLT’s rally stopped just short of resistance at the 20-day moving average (DMA) (the dotted line below). A breakout from there will set up even more attractive prices on a test of converging resistance between the downtrending 50DMA (the red line) and the bottom of the former trading range (the thick black line).

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long TLT put options, long SPY put options

The post A Fresh Opportunity to Fade Bonds As A Marginal Change in Inflation Ignites A Near Oversold Market appeared first on Inflation Watch.

For three months, the bond market has flagged stabilizing inflation starting with the Fed’s first rate cut of 50 basis points (bps). The stock market continued to rally along its uptrend lines. In parallel, the Federal Reserve signaled its second thoughts about its benigas n projections for inflation in the September Summary of Economic Projections. The stock market failed to listen and even Fed fund futures insisted on forcing the Fed into a December rate cut. The Fed delivered that rate cut with a major caveat in the December Summary of Economic Projections: hotter forecasts for inflation and economic growth and an incrementally hawkish expectation for future monetary policy rates. Accordingly, the Fed finally got the stock market’s attention as the market essentially plunged from euphoria to oversold in one day.

Long-term yields continued to increase the day of the Fed decision and the following day. The iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) sliced right through presumed support and closed right at the low for the year set in April.

I took profits on my latest round of TLT put options last week. I will not chase TLT down here. Instead, I will wait to fade the next relief rally.

Instructive Projections

The Fed’s changes were significant but consistent with the Fed’s smoke signals and the declines in the long-term bond market.

• 2025 PCE inflation of 2.3-2.6% vs. the 2.1-2.2% September projection
• 2025 federal funds rate of 3.6-4.1% vs. the 3.1-3.6% September projection
• 2025 GDP 1.8-2.2% vs. the September projection of 1.8-2.2%

Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s commentary during the press conference was instructive. Powell left no question that the Fed sees higher inflation ahead: “these median projections are somewhat higher than in September consistent with the firmer inflation projection.” He acknowledged that under-estimating inflation this year was a partial driver of higher 2025 expectations: this year’s projections have “fallen apart as we’ve approached the end of the year”. Yet, Powell also laid the foundation and rationale for keeping a bias toward easing. He pointed reiterated that the labor market is no longer contributing to inflationary pressures and its accompanying cooling has gone far enough. Moreover, activity in the housing sector has been “weak”. Accordingly, Powell claimed that “cuts will certainly help to support economic activity and the labor market while we can still make progress on inflation because policy is still meaningfully restrictive.”

I remain skeptical. Is current policy really “meaningfully restrictive”? In his opening statement, Powell declared “with today’s action we have lowered our policy rate by a full percentage point from its peak and our policy stance is now significantly less restrictive. We can therefore be more cautious as we consider further adjustments to our policy rate.” This claim only weakly translates into “meaningfully restrictive.” Moreover, financial conditions are now almost as loose as they have ever been since the pandemic per the Chicago Fed’s Adjusted National Financial Conditions Index (ANFCI).

Sure, as one reporter in the Q&A pointed out, “we haven’t seen much change in mortgages, auto loan rates, or credit card rates.” Still, the conventional measures of financial conditions are about as good as can be in the post-pandemic era. Thus, the Fed is walking a fine line between the fear of restoking firmer than expected inflation and a labor market that is noticeably cooling. In the middle, the stock market is pricing in a perfect resolution to this dilemma even with the current plunge.

Powell’s Inflation Narrative Still Rests With the Pandemic

At several points during the Q&A portion of the conference call, Powell offered his version of inflation’s recent history, its origins and drivers. I was surprised to hear him claim that the economy is still dealing with pandemic-related disruptions that are propping up inflation. Perhaps this was a thinly veiled attempt to excuse this year’s under-appreciation of inflation’s stickiness. Powell also blamed technical factors for inflation’s stickiness: the way housing rents are calculated, lags in the data, and “temporary factors like fluctuations in used car prices.” As usual, I turned a skeptical ear toward this narrative because Powell, as he consistently does, absolved the Fed of any responsibility in aiding and abetting inflation’s stickiness by keeping rates too low for too long. I reviewed the case for why the Fed should have raised earlier in “Why Monetary Policy Was Late In Responding to the Pandemic-Era Inflation Surge“). At least this year’s experience and the learning response suggests the Fed will be more circumspect. Victory over inflation is not quite at hand yet.

The Fiscal Wildcard

Circumspection and caution should be keywords going into 2025 and beyond given the uncertainties in fiscal policy. A deepening tariff war and significant tax cuts threaten the Federal Reserve’s fragile dance with inflation-fighting. The mix of opinions within the Fed are telling. In describing how individual Fed members incorporated fiscal policy risks into their forecasts, Powell responded that some members chose to try to estimate fiscal impacts, some chose to leave out fiscal impacts, and others chose not to indicate whether they included fiscal policy. That is quite a mix! Powell made it sound like people stubbornly constructed their forecasts. Anyway, this inconsistency means that the reality of fiscal actions could drive inflation estimates even higher and cause even greater caution at the Fed.

King Dollar

The U.S. dollar (DXY) was the big post-Fed winner. Fresh strength in the U.S. dollar drove the Invesco CurrencyShares Euro Currency Trust (FXE) to a new 2-year low. This breakdown sets up FXE to eventually retest the lows from 2022. Accordingly, I am finally fully on the strong dollar bandwagon. I also expect the stock market to struggle to hit new all-time highs while the U.S. dollar makes new highs.

Is the Invesco CurrencyShares Euro Currency Trust (FXE) ready to resume a downtrend that started in earnest during the financial crisis?

YouTube video of the December 18th FOMC Press Conference

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long SPY put spread

The post The Federal Reserve’s “Hawkishness” Finally Gets the Stock Market’s Attention appeared first on Inflation Watch.

The stock market woke up the next day after the Producer Price Index (PPI) came in hot and suggested once again that underlying price pressures in the economy continue to increase. The S&P 500 gapped down and lost 0.5%. More importantly, TLT lost another 1.2% and confirmed a breakdown below its 50-day moving average (DMA). The core PPI, Final Demand Less Foods and Energy, has trended upwards all year and is now at its highest level since February, 2023 at 3.5%.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Index by Commodity: Final Demand: Final Demand Less Foods and Energy [PPIFES], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, December 12, 2024.

Assuming the Federal Reserve cuts rates next week as expected, I am guessing rate cuts will slow to a crawl if not come to an outright halt for the beginning of 2025. Accordingly, the Fed’s communications to the market will get about as tricky as ever. Fortunately for the bulls the market’s momentum carries a large amount of buffer from current Animal Spirits.

iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond (TLT)

The fascinating contrast between stubbornly stable inflation and Fed rate cuts continues to keep me fading rallies in TLT. TLT’s earlier breakout above its 50DMA (the red line below) almost fooled me. TLT is now closing the gap up created by Trump’s pick to head the U.S. Treasury department, Scott Bessent. Assuming that gap closes, a true test of the bottom of the presumed trading range should finally unfold.

Gold

While TLT delivered, gold disappointed. I have a live short-term trade in PHYS and call spreads and call options in SPDR Gold Trust (GLD) that orbits my core long-term position in GLD shares. I was encouraged by GLD’s reaction to the CPI and just assumed the rally would continue into at least the end of this week. Instead, GLD reversed right back to 50DMA support. I do not have a ready hypothesis to explain this seemingly contrarian move. (I would love to hear yours!)

What Happens If the Fed Gets “Hawkish”

The Fed is currently dovish. It would not take much for the Fed to sound hawkish. A firm follow-up to the round of Fedspeak attempting to walk back market expectations for rates cuts could set off the alarm bells for the market. At that point, the short-term GLD trade gets less attractive. TLT will probably still be good for fades. The stock market will likely stall for at least the rest of the Santa rally season….just enough time to find the next reason to reinflate Animal Spirits.

The big wildcard for me in a “more hawkish Fed” scenario is the U.S. dollar. There are multiple countervailing catalysts that make the U.S. dollar attractive and unattractive. Thus, it is hard to develop conviction beyond the short-term technicals. Right now, I still like fading the euro against the U.S. dollar. At the same time, I finally gave up trying to catch a pullback in USD/CAD, a strengthening in the Canadian dollar (Invesco CurrencyShares Canadian Dollar Trust (FXC)). I am now playing the major breakout to the long side. USD/CAD is practically making a beeline to test a critical long-term double-top spanning 2016 and 2020.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long USD/CAD, short EUR/USD: long GLD shares, calls, and call spread; long PHYS, long TLT puts

The post Bonds Try to Weigh on A Market Trying Harder to Look Past Stabilizing Inflation appeared first on Inflation Watch.

Sources: 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. 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, November 27, 2024.

October’s core PCE, PCE excluding food and energy, came in at 2.8% in October, up from 2.7% in September. Core PCE was last higher in April at 2.9%. Sticky service inflation is a key driver of the current stabilization. While prices for goods decreased 1.0%, prices for services increased 3.9%. Services expenditures increased across each sub-category: housing and utilities, health care, transportation services, recreation services, food services and accommodations, financial services and insurance, and other services. This broad-based strength is indicative of a strong economy where consumer spending remains robust. This robustness also presents a key challenge for the Fed as it seeks to “recalibrate” monetary policy by cutting rates. Even if the job market needs the relief, the (services) economy clearly does not need the rate cut relief at this juncture.

Interestingly, long-term yields decreased in the wake of the hot PCE news. The iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) increased 0.7% (yields down) to a 1-month high. Given this move is inconsistent with a stabilizing, and perhaps now an increasing inflation rate, I attribute TLT’s move to a continuation of the week’s relief rally. TLT gapped higher in relief after Trump selected hedge fund executive Scott Bessent to head the U.S. Treasury Department. Once the dust settles, I expect TLT to fail at or around resistance from its 50-day moving average (DMA) (the red line below) and head back toward the bottom of the current (presumed) trading range. TLT almost tested the bottom of the range after Trump was elected and then again after October CPI came in hot.

Full disclosure: long TLT put

The post Inflation Stabilization Firms with Robust Services Spending appeared first on Inflation Watch.