Connect with us

What Are Consumers’ Inflation Expectations Telling Us Today?

The United States has experienced a considerable rise in inflation over the past year. In this post, we examine how consumers’ inflation expectations…

Published

on

The United States has experienced a considerable rise in inflation over the past year. In this post, we examine how consumers’ inflation expectations have responded to inflation during the pandemic period and to what extent this is different from the behavior of consumers’ expectations before the pandemic. We analyze two aspects of the response of consumers’ expectations to changing conditions. First, we examine by how much consumers revise their inflation expectations in response to inflation surprises. Second, we look at the pass-through of revisions in short-term inflation expectations to revisions in longer-term inflation expectations. We use data from the New York Fed’s Survey of Consumer Expectations (SCE) and from the Michigan Survey of Consumers to measure these responses. We find that over the past two years, consumers’ shorter-horizon expectations have been highly attuned to current inflation news: one-year-ahead inflation expectations are very responsive to inflation surprises, in a pattern similar to what we witnessed before the pandemic. In contrast, three-year-ahead inflation expectations are now far less responsive to inflation surprises than they were before the pandemic, indicating that consumers are taking less signal from the recent movements in inflation about inflation at longer horizons than they did before. We also find that the pass-through from revisions in one-year-ahead expectations to revisions in longer-term expectations has declined during the pandemic relative to the pre-pandemic period. Taken together, these findings show that consumers expect inflation to behave very differently than it did before the pandemic, with a smaller share of short-term movements in inflation expected to persist into the future.

How Is Current Inflation Shaping Inflation Expectations?

Inflation expectations are informative about how the current inflation experience has shaped the public’s views regarding future inflation. In particular, by looking at the pattern of expectations at different horizons, we can learn something about how persistent consumers think the current surge in inflation will turn out to be. In addition, inflation expectations may factor into households and businesses’ economic decisions, such as wage bargaining and price setting, feeding into actual inflation outcomes. If high inflation becomes embedded into long-run inflation expectations, such second-round effects could make inflation more persistent, delaying its return to levels consistent with the Federal Reserve’s long-run inflation goal. Similar concerns arise when, conversely, inflation persistently undershoots the Federal Reserve’s long-run target, as was the case over much of the 2010s.

One way to examine this question is to look at how strongly inflation expectations at various horizons respond to economic conditions. Data from the New York Fed’s SCE show that inflation expectations at the one-year and, to a lesser extent, at the three-year horizon increased significantly over the last year, as realized inflation surged. The fact that inflation expectations moved in response to actual inflation is not surprising on its own and is consistent with prior experience. To gauge whether consumers think the current elevated inflation is going to be more or less persistent, we focus first on the sensitivity of inflation expectations at various horizons to “inflation surprises”—that is, the difference between what someone expected future inflation to be and what it turns out to be. Models such as the one analyzed in Orphanides and Williams (2005) suggest that the sensitivity of expectations to inflation surprises is a useful metric to think about how shocks to inflation may get embedded into persistently high inflation and inflation expectations. In particular, the pass-through of inflation surprises to revisions in long-run expectations is informative about the way in which consumers think about the evolution of inflation at longer horizons—specifically, whether they view the current elevated inflation as more or less persistent over time.

A related measure of perceived inflation persistence is the co-movement between revisions in short-term expectations and revisions in longer-term expectations. Intuitively, when inflation is not perceived to be very persistent, we would expect a relatively low pass-through from short-term to long-term revisions—and we would not expect this relationship to be affected by elevated inflation readings. Finally, as an additional metric, we examine the evolution of inflation expectations at various horizons over recent months: here we consider expectations at the one-year-ahead (short-term), three-year-ahead (medium-term) and five-year-ahead (long-term) horizons. As in previous analysis, five-year-ahead expectations also give us a sense of the extent to which long-run inflation expectations have remained well-anchored at levels broadly consistent with the Federal Reserve’s long-run inflation goal.

Measures of the Responsiveness of Expectations to Changing Conditions

The SCE is uniquely suited to implement these metrics (see here for more details about the survey). Because it is based on a rotating panel that follows individuals over time for up to twelve months, we can measure the extent to which the same person revises their inflation expectations in response to inflation surprises. In a given month, we use the mean of an individual’s density forecast as the measure of that person’s inflation expectation at each horizon under consideration. Individual revisions are defined as the change in the respondent’s forecast of inflation between the start and the end of their tenure in the SCE panel. Similarly, we define the size of the inflation surprise as the difference between annual consumer price index (CPI) inflation recorded in the last month of the respondent’s participation in the survey and their one-year-ahead inflation expectation at the start of their tenure. We then regress individual revisions in inflation expectations on inflation surprises. The table below reports the slope coefficients from regressions using data before and after the start of the pandemic. We can interpret these slope coefficients as the pass-through of inflation surprises to revisions in inflation expectations.

Sensitivity of Revisions in Inflation Expectations to Inflation Surprises

Table for consumer expectations
Sources: Federal Reserve Bank of New York Survey of Consumer Expectations (2014-21); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Notes: A respondent’s revision in inflation expectation (dependent variable) is defined as the respondent’s inflation expectation in month 12 minus the respondent’s inflation expectation in month 2. A respondent’s inflation surprise is defined as realized CPI inflation in month 12 minus the respondent’s expected inflation in month 2. Year is defined as the year of the respondent’s second month in the Survey of Consumer Expectations (SCE) panel. Inflation expectations are defined as the respondent’s density forecast mean from the SCE core survey. All slope coefficient estimates are statistically significant at the 0.1 percent level. Standard errors are in parentheses.

We highlight two results. First, the pass-through of inflation surprises to revisions in inflation expectations is considerably larger at the short-term (one-year-ahead) horizon than at the medium-term (three-year-ahead) horizon: for instance, in the pre-pandemic period, the sensitivity of revisions to surprises is about 0.7 at the short-term horizon and 0.45 at the medium-term horizon. This means that a 1 percentage point surprise in inflation on average translates into a 0.7 percentage point revision in one-year-ahead expectations, but only a 0.45 percentage point revision in three-year-ahead expectations. Second, while the estimated pass-through of inflation surprises to revisions in short-term inflation expectations since the beginning of 2020 (0.75 in column 2) is slightly higher than what it was in the period before the pandemic (0.69 in column 1), the pass-through to revisions in medium-term inflation expectations is less than half as large as it was before 2020 (0.19 vs. 0.45). Intuitively, this result suggests that while consumers are highly attuned to current inflation news in updating their short-term inflation expectations, they are taking less signal than before the pandemic from the recent sharp movements in realized inflation when revising their three-year-ahead expectations.

Next, we examine the co-movement between short-term (one-year-ahead) and longer-term (three-year-ahead or longer) inflation expectations revisions. The chart below plots these estimated pass-through coefficients from a series of rolling regressions taken over a six-month window. For instance, the last data point in the illustration represents the rolling regression over the six-month period from August 2021 through January 2022. Here we also use data from the Michigan survey, exploiting its limited panel component whereby a subset of respondents in each month are re-interviewed six months later. As a result of that feature, all revisions in this analysis are defined as the difference in an individual’s response between a given month and six months earlier. Longer-term expectations are measured at the three-year-ahead horizon in the SCE and at the five-to-ten-year-ahead horizon in the Michigan survey.

As seen in the next chart, the estimated pass-through from short-term to longer-term inflation expectations has been lower, on average, during the pandemic than it was before. On average, the estimates of pass-through to longer-term inflation expectations declined from 0.62 to 0.48 in the SCE, and from 0.31 to 0.17 in the Michigan survey. This finding is consistent with that reported above on the decline in the sensitivity of longer-run inflation expectations to inflation surprises during the pandemic period.

Co-movement between Short-Term and Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Revisions


Sources: Federal Reserve Bank of New York Survey of Consumer Expectations (2013-22); Michigan Survey of Consumers (2013-22).
Notes: The chart shows estimated slope coefficients from six-month rolling regressions of revisions in longer-term inflation expectations on revisions in short-term inflation expectations. A respondent’s revision in inflation expectations (dependent variable) is defined as the respondent’s inflation expectation in month t minus the respondent’s inflation expectation in month t-6. In the Survey of Consumer Expectations (SCE), longer-term expectations are three-year-ahead density means and short-term expectations are one-year-ahead density means. In the Michigan survey, longer-term expectations are five-to-ten-year-ahead point forecasts and short-term expectations are one-year-ahead point forecasts. For each survey, the last data point in the plot represents rolling regressions over the six-month period between August 2021 and January 2022, included.

Long-Run Inflation Expectations Remain Stable

Finally, to complement this analysis, we consider the evolution of inflation expectations at the long-term horizon. The data are based on a new survey question that we have fielded in the SCE a number of times since last summer, including most recently in January 2022. The table below shows that, as mentioned earlier, one-year-ahead and, to a lesser extent, three-year-ahead inflation expectations increased over the last year—although they show signs of moderation in January. In contrast, long-term (five-year-ahead) inflation expectations have remained remarkably stable since last summer. This finding is again suggestive of a low perceived persistence of inflation over longer horizons, and is consistent with the earlier evidence of well-anchored expectations from the analysis that was carried out last summer.

Median Inflation Expectations at Different Horizons

chart for consumer inflation no. 2
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of New York Survey of Consumer Expectations (SCE).
Notes: Data for July 2019 are based on 986 responses from a special SCE survey. Data for August 2021 are based on SCE core survey responses at the one- and three-year horizons and 2,183 responses from a special survey at the five-year horizon. All other data are based on SCE core survey responses. Median expectations are computed over individual respondents’ density means. The core survey includes about 1,250 household heads per month.

Besides its tragic human toll, the pandemic has brought about extraordinary economic dislocation, including unprecedented supply and demand imbalances that have resulted in a sharp rise in inflation. Our measures indicate that consumers seem to recognize the unusual nature of the current inflation experience. While short-term inflation expectations have been highly responsive to inflation news, medium-term expectations have exhibited lower sensitivity to inflation surprises during the pandemic than before it. The pass-through from short-term to longer-term inflation expectations revisions has also declined, on average, since the start of the pandemic. Finally, while one-year-ahead and three-year-ahead expectations rose significantly during the pandemic, five-year-ahead inflation expectations have remained remarkably stable. Taken together, these findings indicate that consumers are taking less signal than before the pandemic from inflation news in updating their longer-term expectations, and that they do not view the current elevated inflation as very long-lasting.

Oliver Armantier is an assistant vice president in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

Leo Goldman is a senior research analyst in the Bank’s Research and Statistics Group.

Gizem Koşar is a senior economist in the Bank’s Research and Statistics Group.

Giorgio Topa is a vice president in the Bank’s Research and Statistics Group.

Wilbert van der Klaauw is a senior vice president in the Bank’s Research and Statistics Group.

John C. Williams is president and CEO of the Bank.

Disclaimer
The views expressed in this post are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Federal Open Market Committee, or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Beloved mall retailer files Chapter 7 bankruptcy, will liquidate

The struggling chain has given up the fight and will close hundreds of stores around the world.

Published

on

It has been a brutal period for several popular retailers. The fallout from the covid pandemic and a challenging economic environment have pushed numerous chains into bankruptcy with Tuesday Morning, Christmas Tree Shops, and Bed Bath & Beyond all moving from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation.

In all three of those cases, the companies faced clear financial pressures that led to inventory problems and vendors demanding faster, or even upfront payment. That creates a sort of inevitability.

Related: Beloved retailer finds life after bankruptcy, new famous owner

When a retailer faces financial pressure it sets off a cycle where vendors become wary of selling them items. That leads to barren shelves and no ability for the chain to sell its way out of its financial problems. 

Once that happens bankruptcy generally becomes the only option. Sometimes that means a Chapter 11 filing which gives the company a chance to negotiate with its creditors. In some cases, deals can be worked out where vendors extend longer terms or even forgive some debts, and banks offer an extension of loan terms.

In other cases, new funding can be secured which assuages vendor concerns or the company might be taken over by its vendors. Sometimes, as was the case with David's Bridal, a new owner steps in, adds new money, and makes deals with creditors in order to give the company a new lease on life.

It's rare that a retailer moves directly into Chapter 7 bankruptcy and decides to liquidate without trying to find a new source of funding.

Mall traffic has varied depending upon the type of mall.

Image source: Getty Images

The Body Shop has bad news for customers  

The Body Shop has been in a very public fight for survival. Fears began when the company closed half of its locations in the United Kingdom. That was followed by a bankruptcy-style filing in Canada and an abrupt closure of its U.S. stores on March 4.

"The Canadian subsidiary of the global beauty and cosmetics brand announced it has started restructuring proceedings by filing a Notice of Intention (NOI) to Make a Proposal pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). In the same release, the company said that, as of March 1, 2024, The Body Shop US Limited has ceased operations," Chain Store Age reported.

A message on the company's U.S. website shared a simple message that does not appear to be the entire story.

"We're currently undergoing planned maintenance, but don't worry we're due to be back online soon."

That same message is still on the company's website, but a new filing makes it clear that the site is not down for maintenance, it's down for good.

The Body Shop files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy

While the future appeared bleak for The Body Shop, fans of the brand held out hope that a savior would step in. That's not going to be the case. 

The Body Shop filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States.

"The US arm of the ethical cosmetics group has ceased trading at its 50 outlets. On Saturday (March 9), it filed for Chapter 7 insolvency, under which assets are sold off to clear debts, putting about 400 jobs at risk including those in a distribution center that still holds millions of dollars worth of stock," The Guardian reported.

After its closure in the United States, the survival of the brand remains very much in doubt. About half of the chain's stores in the United Kingdom remain open along with its Australian stores. 

The future of those stores remains very much in doubt and the chain has shared that it needs new funding in order for them to continue operating.

The Body Shop did not respond to a request for comment from TheStreet.   

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending