Sunday, March 17, 2019

Increasing Valuations of Risk Financial Assets, Rules, Discretionary Authorities and Slow Productivity Growth in the Lost Economic Cycle of the Global Recession with Economic Growth Underperforming Below Trend Worldwide, United States Inflation, United States Housing, World Cyclical Slow Growth, Government Intervention in Globalization, and Global Recession Risk: Part II

NOTE: CANNOT UPLOAD CHARTS AND IMAGES ERROR 400.

Increasing Valuations of Risk Financial Assets, Rules, Discretionary Authorities and Slow Productivity Growth in the Lost Economic Cycle of the Global Recession with Economic Growth Underperforming Below Trend Worldwide, United States Inflation, United States Housing, World Cyclical Slow Growth, Government Intervention in Globalization, and Global Recession Risk

NOTE: CANNOT UPLOAD CHARTS AND IMAGES ERROR 400.

© Carlos M. Pelaez, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019

I Rules, Discretionary Authorities and Slow Productivity Growth

II United States Inflation

IC Long-term US Inflation

ID Current US Inflation

IIA United States Housing Collapse

IIA1 Sales of New Houses

IIA2 United States House Prices

III World Financial Turbulence

IV Global Inflation

V World Economic Slowdown

VA United States

VB Japan

VC China

VD Euro Area

VE Germany

VF France

VG Italy

VH United Kingdom

VI Valuation of Risk Financial Assets

VII Economic Indicators

VIII Interest Rates

IX Conclusion

References

Appendixes

Appendix I The Great Inflation

IIIB Appendix on Safe Haven Currencies

IIIC Appendix on Fiscal Compact

IIID Appendix on European Central Bank Large Scale Lender of Last Resort

IIIG Appendix on Deficit Financing of Growth and the Debt Crisis

II United States Inflation. C Long-Term US Inflation. Key percentage average yearly rates of the US economy on growth and inflation are provided in Table I-1 updated with release of new data. The choice of dates prevents the measurement of long-term potential economic growth because of two recessions from IQ2001 (Mar) to IVQ2001 (Nov) with decline of GDP of 0.3 percent and the drop in GDP of 4.0 percent in the recession from IVQ2007 (Dec) to IIQ2009 (June) (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2018/12/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html). Long-term economic performance in the United States consisted of trend growth of GDP at 3 percent per year and of per capita GDP at 2 percent per year as measured for 1870 to 2010 by Robert E Lucas (2011May). The economy returned to trend growth after adverse events such as wars and recessions. The key characteristic of adversities such as recessions was much higher rates of growth in expansion periods that permitted the economy to recover output, income and employment losses that occurred during the contractions. Over the business cycle, the economy compensated the losses of contractions with higher growth in expansions to maintain trend growth of GDP of 3 percent and of GDP per capita of 2 percent. The US maintained growth at 3.0 percent on average over entire cycles with expansions at higher rates compensating for contractions. Key percentage average yearly rates of the US economy on growth and inflation are provided in Table I-1 updated with release of new data. US economic growth has been at only 2.3 percent on average in the cyclical expansion in the 38 quarters from IIIQ2009 to IVQ2018. Boskin (2010Sep) measures that the US economy grew at 6.2 percent in the first four quarters and 4.5 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the second quarter of 1975; and at 7.7 percent in the first four quarters and 5.8 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the first quarter of 1983 (Professor Michael J. Boskin, Summer of Discontent, Wall Street Journal, Sep 2, 2010 http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465462926649950.html). There are new calculations using the revision of US GDP and personal income data since 1929 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) and the initial estimate of GDP for IVQ2018 (https://www.bea.gov/system/files/2019-02/gdp4q18_ini_0.pdf). The average of 7.7 percent in the first four quarters of major cyclical expansions is in contrast with the rate of growth in the first four quarters of the expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010 of only 2.8 percent obtained by dividing GDP of $15,557.3 billion in IIQ2010 by GDP of $15,134.1 billion in IIQ2009 {[($15,557.3/$15,134.1) -1]100 = 2.8%], or accumulating the quarter on quarter growth rates (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2018/12/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html). The expansion from IQ1983 to IQ1986 was at the average annual growth rate of 5.7 percent, 5.3 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1986, 5.1 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1986, 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IQ1987, 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1987, 4.9 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1987, 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1987, 4.9 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1988, 4.8 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1988, 4.8 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1988, 4.8 percent from IQ1983 to IQ1989, 4.7 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1989, 4.6 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1989, 4.5 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1989. 4.5 percent from IQ1983 to IQ1990, 4.4 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1990, 4.3 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1990, 4.0 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1990, 3.8 percent from IQ1983 to IQ1991, 3.8 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1991, 3.8 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1991, 3.7 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1991, 3.7 percent from IQ1983 to IQ1992, 3.7 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1992 and at 7.9 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1983 (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2018/12/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html). The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) dates a contraction of the US from IQ1990 (Jul) to IQ1991 (Mar) (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html). The expansion lasted until another contraction beginning in IQ2001 (Mar). US GDP contracted 1.3 percent from the pre-recession peak of $8983.9 billion of chained 2009 dollars in IIIQ1990 to the trough of $8865.6 billion in IQ1991 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). The US maintained growth at 3.0 percent on average over entire cycles with expansions at higher rates compensating for contractions. Growth at trend in the entire cycle from IVQ2007 to IVQ2018 would have accumulated to 38.4 percent. GDP in IVQ2018 would be $21,814.6 billion (in constant dollars of 2012) if the US had grown at trend, which is higher by $3030.0 billion than actual $18,784.6 billion. There are more than two trillion dollars of GDP less than at trend, explaining the 20.9 million unemployed or underemployed equivalent to actual unemployment/underemployment of 12.2 percent of the effective labor force (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/dollar-revaluation-twenty-one-million.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2019/02/wait-and-see-patient-forecast-dependent.html). US GDP in IVQ2018 is 13.9 percent lower than at trend. US GDP grew from $15,762.0 billion in IVQ2007 in constant dollars to $18,784.6 billion in IVQ2018 or 19.2 percent at the average annual equivalent rate of 1.6 percent. Professor John H. Cochrane (2014Jul2) estimates US GDP at more than 10 percent below trend. Cochrane (2016May02) measures GDP growth in the US at average 3.5 percent per year from 1950 to 2000 and only at 1.76 percent per year from 2000 to 2015 with only at 2.0 percent annual equivalent in the current expansion. Cochrane (2016May02) proposes drastic changes in regulation and legal obstacles to private economic activity. The US missed the opportunity to grow at higher rates during the expansion and it is difficult to catch up because growth rates in the final periods of expansions tend to decline. The US missed the opportunity for recovery of output and employment always afforded in the first four quarters of expansion from recessions. Zero interest rates and quantitative easing were not required or present in successful cyclical expansions and in secular economic growth at 3.0 percent per year and 2.0 percent per capita as measured by Lucas (2011May). There is cyclical uncommonly slow growth in the US instead of allegations of secular stagnation. There is similar behavior in manufacturing. There is classic research on analyzing deviations of output from trend (see for example Schumpeter 1939, Hicks 1950, Lucas 1975, Sargent and Sims 1977). The long-term trend is growth of manufacturing at average 3.1 percent per year from Jan 1919 to Jan 2019. Growth at 3.1 percent per year would raise the NSA index of manufacturing output from 108.3221 in Dec 2007 to 151.9383 in Jan 2019. The actual index NSA in Jan 2019 is 102.8776, which is 32.3 percent below trend. Manufacturing output grew at average 1.9 percent between Dec 1986 and Jan 2019. Using trend growth of 1.9 percent per year, the index would increase to 133.4487 in Jan 2019. The output of manufacturing at 102.8776 in Jan 2019 is 22.9 percent below trend under this alternative calculation. The US maintained growth at 3.0 percent on average over entire cycles with expansions at higher rates compensating for contractions. In the period from 1929 to 2018 the average growth rate of real GDP was 3.2 percent and 3.2 percent between 1947 to 2018, which is close to 3.0 percent from 1870 to 2010 measured by Lucas (2011May), as shown in Table I-1. From 1929 to 2018, nominal GDP grew at the average rate of 6.1 percent and at 6.4 percent from 1947 to 2018. The implicit deflator increased at the average rate of 2.8 percent from 1929 to 2018 and at 3.1 percent from 1947 to 2018.  Between 2000 and 2018, real GDP grew at the average rate of 1.9 percent per year, nominal GDP at 3.9 percent and the implicit deflator at 1.9 percent. The annual average rate of CPI increase was 3.1 percent from 1913 to 2018, 3.5 percent from 1947 to 2018 and 2.1 percent from 2000 to 2018. Between 2000 and 2018, the average rate of CPI inflation was 2.0 percent per year and 2.0 percent excluding food and energy. From 2000 to 2019, the average rate of CPI inflation was 2.0 percent and 2.0 percent excluding food and energy. The average annual rate of PPI inflation was 2.9 percent from 1947 to 2018 and 2.2 percent from 2000 to 2018. PPI inflation increased at 2.2 percent per year on average from 2000 to 2018, 2.1 percent on average from 2000 to 2019 and at 1.8 percent excluding food and energy from 2000 to 2018 and 1.8 percent from 2000 to 2019. Producer price inflation of finished energy goods increased at average 3.7 percent between 2000 and 2018 and at 3.1 percent between 2000 and 2019. There is also inflation in international trade. Import prices increased at 1.3 percent per year between 2000 and 2018 and 1.2 percent between 2000 and 2019. The commodity price shock is revealed by inflation of import prices of fuels and lubricants increasing at 4.3 percent per year between 2000 and 2018 and at 3.7 percent between 2000 and 2019. The average percentage rates of increase of import prices excluding fuels are at 1.0 percent for 2002 to 2018 and 0.9 percent for 2002 to 2019. Export prices rose at the average rate of 1.3 percent between 2000 and 2018 and at 1.3 percent from 2000 to 2019. What spared the US of sharper decade-long deterioration of the terms of trade, (export prices)/(import prices), was its diversification and competitiveness in agriculture. Agricultural export prices grew at the average yearly rate of 3.3 percent from 2000 to 2018 and at 3.1 percent from 2000 to 2019. US nonagricultural export prices rose at 1.1 percent per year from 2000 to 2018 and at 1.1 percent from 2000 to 2019. The share of petroleum imports in US trade far exceeds that of agricultural exports. Unconventional monetary policy inducing carry trades in commodities has deteriorated US terms of trade, prices of exports relative to prices of imports, tending to restrict growth of US aggregate real income. These dynamic inflation rates are not similar to those for the economy of Japan where inflation was negative in seven of the 10 years in the 2000s. There is no reality of the proposition of need of unconventional monetary policy in the US because of deflation panic. There is reality in cyclical slow economic growth currently but not in secular stagnation.

Table I-1, US, Average Growth Rates of Real and Nominal GDP, Consumer Price Index, Producer Price Index and Import and Export Prices, Percent per Year

Real GDP

2000-2018: 1.9%

1929-2018: 3.2%

1947-2018: 3.2%

Nominal GDP

2000-2018: 3.9%

1929-2018: 6.1%

1947-2018: 6.4%

Implicit Price Deflator

2000-2018: 1.9%

1929-2018: 2.8%

1947-2018: 3.1%

CPI

2000-2018: 2.0%
2000-2019: 2.0%

Annual

1913-2018: 3.1%

1947-2018: 3.5%

2000-2018: 2.1%

CPI ex Food and Energy

2000-2018: 2.0%
2000-2019: 2.0%

PPI

2000-2018: 2.2%
2000-2019: 2.1%

Annual

1947-2018: 2.9%

2000-2018: 2.2%

PPI ex Food and Energy

2000-2018: 1.8%
2000-2019: 1.8%

PPI Finished Energy Goods

2000-2018: 3.7%

2000-2019: 3.1%

Import Prices

2000-2018: 1.3%
2000-2019: 1.2%

Import Prices Fuels and Lubricants

2000-2018: 4.3

2000-2019: 3.7

Import Prices Excluding Fuels

2002-2018: 1.0%
2002-2019:  0.9%

Export Prices

2000-2018: 1.3%
2000-2019: 1.3%

Agricultural Export Prices

2000-2018: 3.3%
2000-2019: 3.1%

Nonagricultural Export Prices

2000-2018: 1.1%
2000-2019: 1.1%

Note: rates for price indexes in the row beginning with “CPI” and ending in the row “Nonagricultural Export Prices” are for Feb 2000 to Feb 2018 and for Feb 2000 to Feb 2019.

Sources: https://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm https://www.bls.gov/ppi/ https://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm https://www.bls.gov/mxp/data.htm

ID Current US Inflation. Unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates and large-scale purchases of long-term securities for the balance sheet of the central bank is proposed to prevent deflation. The data of CPI inflation of all goods and CPI inflation excluding food and energy for the past six decades does not show even one negative change, as shown in Table CPIEX.

Table CPIEX, Annual Percentage Changes of the CPI All Items Excluding Food and Energy

Year

Annual ∆%

1958

2.4

1959

2.0

1960

1.3

1961

1.3

1962

1.3

1963

1.3

1964

1.6

1965

1.2

1966

2.4

1967

3.6

1968

4.6

1969

5.8

1970

6.3

1971

4.7

1972

3.0

1973

3.6

1974

8.3

1975

9.1

1976

6.5

1977

6.3

1978

7.4

1979

9.8

1980

12.4

1981

10.4

1982

7.4

1983

4.0

1984

5.0

1985

4.3

1986

4.0

1987

4.1

1988

4.4

1989

4.5

1990

5.0

1991

4.9

1992

3.7

1993

3.3

1994

2.8

1995

3.0

1996

2.7

1997

2.4

1998

2.3

1999

2.1

2000

2.4

2001

2.6

2002

2.4

2003

1.4

2004

1.8

2005

2.2

2006

2.5

2007

2.3

2008

2.3

2009

1.7

2010

1.0

2011

1.7

2012

2.1

2013

1.8

2014

1.7

2015

1.8

2016

2.2

2017

1.8

2018

2.1

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics https://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

The history of producer price inflation in the past five decades does not provide evidence of deflation. The finished core PPI does not register even one single year of decline, as shown in Table PPIEX.

Table PPIEX, Annual Percentage Changes of the PPI Finished Goods Excluding Food and Energy

Year

Annual ∆%

1974

11.4

1975

11.4

1976

5.7

1977

6.0

1978

7.5

1979

8.9

1980

11.2

1981

8.6

1982

5.7

1983

3.0

1984

2.4

1985

2.5

1986

2.3

1987

2.4

1988

3.3

1989

4.4

1990

3.7

1991

3.6

1992

2.4

1993

1.2

1994

1.0

1995

2.1

1996

1.4

1997

0.3

1998

0.9

1999

1.7

2000

1.3

2001

1.4

2002

0.1

2003

0.2

2004

1.5

2005

2.4

2006

1.5

2007

1.9

2008

3.4

2009

2.6

2010

1.2

2011

2.4

2012

2.6

2013

1.5

2014

1.9

2015

2.0

2016

1.6

2017

1.8

2018

2.2

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Chart I-1 provides US nominal GDP from 1929 to 2017. The chart disguises the decline of nominal GDP during the 1930s from $104.6 billion in 1929 to $57.2 billion in 1933 or by 45.3 percent (data from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). The level of nominal GDP reached $102.9 billion in 1940 and exceeded the $104.6 billion of 1929 only with $129.3 billion in 1941. The only major visible bump in the chart occurred in the recession of IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 with revised cumulative decline of real GDP of 4.0 percent. US nominal GDP fell from $14,712.8 billion in 2008 to $14,448.9 billion in 2009 or by 1.8 percent. US nominal GDP rose to $14,992.1 billion in 2010 or by 3.8 percent and to $15,542.6 billion in 2011 for an additional 3.7 percent for cumulative increase of 7.6 percent relative to 2009 and to $16,197.0 billion in 2012 for an additional 4.2 percent and cumulative increase of 12.1 percent relative to 2009. US nominal GDP increased from $14,451.9 in 2007 to $20,500.6 billion in 2018 or by 41.9 percent at the average annual rate of 3.2 percent per year (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). Tendency for deflation would be reflected in persistent bumps. In contrast, during the Great Depression in the four years of 1929 to 1933, GDP in constant dollars fell 26.3 percent cumulatively and fell 45.3 percent in current dollars (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 150-2, Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2009b), 205-7). The comparison of the global recession after 2007 with the Great Depression is entirely misleading (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2018/12/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html).

Chart I-1, US, Nominal GDP 1929-2018

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart I-2 provides US real GDP from 1929 to 2017. The chart also disguises the Depression of the 1930s. In the four years of 1929 to 1933, GDP in constant dollars fell 26.3 percent cumulatively and fell 45.3 percent in current dollars (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 150-2, Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2009b), 205-7; data from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). Persistent deflation threatening real economic activity would also be reflected in the series of long-term growth of real GDP. There is no such behavior in Chart I-2 except for periodic recessions in the US economy that have occurred throughout history.

Chart I-2, US, Real GDP 1929-2018

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Deflation would also be in evidence in long-term series of prices in the form of bumps. The GDP implicit deflator series in Chart I-3 from 1929 to 2018 shows sharp dynamic behavior over time. There is decline of the implicit price deflator of GDP by 25.8 percent from 1929 to 1933 (data from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). In contrast, the implicit price deflator of GDP of the US increased from 92.486 (2012 =100) in 2007 to 95.004 in 2009 or by 2.7 percent and increased to 110.389 in 2018 or by 16.2 percent relative to 2009 and 19.4 percent relative to 2007. The implicit price deflator of US GDP increased in every quarter from IVQ2007 to IVQ2012 with exception of decline from 94.986 in IVQ2008 to 94.938 in IIIQ2009 or by 0.1 percent (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). Wars are characterized by rapidly rising prices followed by declines when peace is restored. The US economy is not plagued by deflation but by long-run inflation.

Chart I-3, US, GDP Implicit Price Deflator 1929-2018

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart I-4 provides percent change from preceding quarter in prices of GDP at seasonally adjusted annual rates (SAAR) from 1980 to 2018. There is one case of negative change by 0.4 percent in IIQ2009 that was adjustment from 3.1 percent in IIIQ2008 following 1.8 percent in IQ2008 and 1.6 percent IIQ2008 caused by carry trades from policy interest rates being moved to zero into commodity futures. These positions were reversed because of the fear of toxic assets in banks in the proposal of TARP in late 2008 (Cochrane and Zingales 2009). Prices of GDP increased at 0.4 percent in IVQ2014. GDP prices decreased at 0.2 percent in IQ2015, increasing at 2.4 percent in IIQ015 and at 1.2 percent in IIIQ2015. Prices of GDP increased at 0.1 percent in IVQ2015 and decreased at 0.2 percent in IQ2016. Prices of GDP increased at 2.7 percent in IIQ2016 and increased at 1.4 percent in IIIQ2016. Prices of GDP increased at 2.3 percent in IVQ2016 and increased at 2.0 percent in IQ2017. Prices of GDP increased at 1.2 percent in IIQ2017 and increased at 2.2 percent in IIIQ2017. Prices of GDP increased at 2.5 percent in IVQ2017 and increased at 2.0 percent in IQ2018. Prices of GDP increased at 3.0 percent in IIQ2018 and increased at 1.8 percent in IIIQ2018. Prices of GDP increased at 1.8 percent in IVQ2014. There has not been actual deflation or risk of deflation threatening depression in the US that would justify unconventional monetary policy.

Chart I-4, Percent Change from Preceding Period in Prices for GDP Seasonally Adjusted at Annual Rates 1980-2018

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart I-5 provides percent change from preceding year in prices of GDP from 1929 to 2017. There are four consecutive years of declines of prices of GDP during the Great Depression: 3.9 percent in 1930, 9.9 percent in 1931, 11.4 percent in 1932 and 2.7 percent in 1933. There were two consecutive declines of 1.8 percent in 1938 and 1.3 percent in 1939. Prices of GDP changed 0.0 percent in 1949 after increasing 12.6 percent in 1946, 11.2 percent in 1947 and 5.7 percent in 1948, which is similar to experience with wars in other countries. There are no other negative changes of annual prices of GDP in 74 years from 1939 to 2017.

Chart I-5, Percent Change from Preceding Year in Prices for Gross Domestic Product 1930-2018

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

The producer price index of the US from 1947 to 2019 in Chart I-6 shows various periods of more rapid or less rapid inflation but no bumps. The major event is the decline in 2008 when risk aversion because of the global recession caused the collapse of oil prices from $148/barrel to less than $80/barrel with most other commodity prices also collapsing. The event had nothing in common with explanations of deflation but rather with the concentration of risk exposures in commodities after the decline of stock market indexes. Eventually, there was a flight to government securities because of the fears of insolvency of banks caused by statements supporting proposals for withdrawal of toxic assets from bank balance sheets in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as explained by Cochrane and Zingales (2009). The bump in 2008 with decline in 2009 is consistent with the view that zero interest rates with subdued risk aversion induce carry trades into commodity futures.

Chart I-6, US, Producer Price Index, Finished Goods, NSA, 1947-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Chart I-7 provides 12-month percentage changes of the producer price index from 1948 to 2018. The distinguishing even in Chart I-7 is the Great Inflation of the 1970s. The shape of the two-hump Bactrian camel of the 1970’s resembles the double hump from 2007 to 2019.

Chart I-7, US, Producer Price Index, Finished Goods, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 1948-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi

Annual percentage changes of the producer price index from 1948 to 2018 are shown in Table I-1A. The producer price index fell 2.8 percent in 1949 following the adjustment to World War II and fell 0.6 percent in 1952 and 1.0 percent in 1953 around the Korean War. There are two other mild declines of 0.3 percent in 1959 and 0.3 percent in 1963. There are only few subsequent and isolated declines of the producer price index of 1.4 percent in 1986, 0.8 percent in 1998, 1.3 percent in 2002 and 2.6 percent in 2009. The decline of 2009 was caused by unwinding of carry trades in 2008 that had lifted oil prices to $140/barrel during deep global recession because of the panic of probable toxic assets in banks that would be removed with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) (Cochrane and Zingales 2009). Producer prices fell 3.2 percent in 2015 and declined 1.0 percent in 2016 during collapse of commodity prices form high prices induced by zero interest rates. Producer prices increased 3.2 percent in 2017 and increased 3.0 percent in 2018. There is no evidence in this history of 66 years of the US producer price index suggesting that there is frequent and persistent deflation shock requiring aggressive unconventional monetary policy. The design of such anti-deflation policy could provoke price and financial instability because of lags in effect of monetary policy, model errors, inaccurate forecasts and misleading analysis of current economic conditions.

Table I-1A, US, Annual PPI Inflation ∆% 1948-2018

Year

Annual ∆%

1948

8.0

1949

-2.8

1950

1.8

1951

9.2

1952

-0.6

1953

-1.0

1954

0.3

1955

0.3

1956

2.6

1957

3.8

1958

2.2

1959

-0.3

1960

0.9

1961

0.0

1962

0.3

1963

-0.3

1964

0.3

1965

1.8

1966

3.2

1967

1.1

1968

2.8

1969

3.8

1970

3.4

1971

3.1

1972

3.2

1973

9.1

1974

15.4

1975

10.6

1976

4.5

1977

6.4

1978

7.9

1979

11.2

1980

13.4

1981

9.2

1982

4.1

1983

1.6

1984

2.1

1985

1.0

1986

-1.4

1987

2.1

1988

2.5

1989

5.2

1990

4.9

1991

2.1

1992

1.2

1993

1.2

1994

0.6

1995

1.9

1996

2.7

1997

0.4

1998

-0.8

1999

1.8

2000

3.8

2001

2.0

2002

-1.3

2003

3.2

2004

3.6

2005

4.8

2006

3.0

2007

3.9

2008

6.3

2009

-2.6

2010

4.2

2011

6.1

2012

1.9

2013

1.2

2014

1.9

2015

-3.2

2016

-1.0

2017

3.2

2018

3.0

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

The producer price index excluding food and energy from 1973 to 2019, the first historical date of availability in the dataset of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), shows similarly dynamic behavior as the overall index, as shown in Chart I-8. There is no evidence of persistent deflation in the US PPI.

Chart I-8, US Producer Price Index, Finished Goods Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 1973-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Chart I-9 provides 12-month percentage rates of change of the finished goods index excluding food and energy. The dominating characteristic is the Great Inflation of the 1970s. The double hump illustrates how inflation may appear to be subdued and then returns with strength.

Chart I-9, US Producer Price Index, Finished Goods Excluding Food and Energy, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 1974-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

The producer price index of energy goods from 1974 to 2019 is in Chart I-10. The first jump occurred during the Great Inflation of the 1970s analyzed in various comments of this blog (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html) and in Appendix I. There is relative stability of producer prices after 1986 with another jump and decline in the late 1990s into the early 2000s. The episode of commodity price increases during a global recession in 2008 could only have occurred with interest rates dropping toward zero, which stimulated the carry trade from zero interest rates to leveraged positions in commodity futures. Commodity futures exposures were dropped in the flight to government securities after Sep 2008. Commodity future exposures were created again when risk aversion diminished around Mar 2010 after the finding that US bank balance sheets did not have the toxic assets that were mentioned in proposing TARP in Congress (see Cochrane and Zingales 2009). Fluctuations in commodity prices and other risk financial assets originate in carry trade when risk aversion ameliorates. There are also fluctuations originating in shifts in preference for asset classes such as between commodities and equities.

Chart I-10, US, Producer Price Index, Finished Energy Goods, NSA, 1974-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Chart I-11 shows 12-month percentage changes of the producer price index of finished energy goods from 1975 to 2019. This index is only available after 1974 and captures only one of the humps of energy prices during the Great Inflation. Fluctuations in energy prices have occurred throughout history in the US but without provoking deflation. Two cases are the decline of oil prices in 2001 to 2002 that has been analyzed by Barsky and Kilian (2004) and the collapse of oil prices from over $140/barrel with shock of risk aversion to the carry trade in Sep 2008.

Chart I-11, US, Producer Price Index, Finished Energy Goods, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 1974-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

Chart I-12 provides the consumer price index NSA from 1913 to 2019. The dominating characteristic is the increase in slope during the Great Inflation from the middle of the 1960s through the 1970s. There is long-term inflation in the US and no evidence of deflation risks.

Chart I-12, US, Consumer Price Index, NSA, 1913-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

Chart I-13 provides 12-month percentage changes of the consumer price index from 1914 to 2019. The only episode of deflation after 1950 is in 2009, which is explained by the reversal of speculative commodity futures carry trades that were induced by interest rates driven to zero in a shock of monetary policy in 2008. The only persistent case of deflation is from 1930 to 1933, which has little if any relevance to the contemporary United States economy. There are actually three waves of inflation in the second half of the 1960s, in the mid-1970s and again in the late 1970s. Inflation rates then stabilized in a range with only two episodes above 5 percent.

Chart I-13, US, Consumer Price Index, All Items, 12- Month Percentage Change 1914-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

Table I-2 provides annual percentage changes of United States consumer price inflation from 1914 to 2018. There have been only cases of annual declines of the CPI after wars:

  • World War I minus 10.5 percent in 1921 and minus 6.1 percent in 1922 following cumulative increases of 83.5 percent in four years from 1917 to 1920 at the average of 16.4 percent per year
  • World War II: minus 1.2 percent in 1949 following cumulative 33.9 percent in three years from 1946 to 1948 at average 10.2 percent per year
  • Minus 0.4 percent in 1955 two years after the end of the Korean War
  • Minus 0.4 percent in 2009.
  • The decline of 0.4 percent in 2009 followed increase of 3.8 percent in 2008 and is explained by the reversal of speculative carry trades into commodity futures that were created in 2008 as monetary policy rates were driven to zero. The reversal occurred after misleading statement on toxic assets in banks in the proposal for TARP (Cochrane and Zingales 2009).

There were declines of 1.7 percent in both 1927 and 1928 during the episode of revival of rules of the gold standard. The only persistent deflationary period since 1914 was during the Great Depression in the years from 1930 to 1933 and again in 1938-1939. Consumer prices increased only 0.1 percent in 2015 because of the collapse of commodity prices from artificially high levels induced by zero interest rates. Consumer prices increased 1.3 percent in 2016, increasing at 2.1 percent in 2017. Consumer prices increased 2.4 percent in 2018. Fear of deflation based on that experience does not justify unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates that has failed to stop deflation in Japan. Financial repression causes far more adverse effects on allocation of resources by distorting the calculus of risk/returns than alleged employment-creating effects or there would not be current recovery without jobs and hiring after zero interest rates since Dec 2008 and intended now forever in a self-imposed forecast growth and employment mandate of monetary policy. Unconventional monetary policy drives wide swings in allocations of positions into risk financial assets that generate instability instead of intended pursuit of prosperity without inflation. There is insufficient knowledge and imperfect tools to maintain the gap of actual relative to potential output constantly at zero while restraining inflation in an open interval of (1.99, 2.0). Symmetric targets appear to have been abandoned in favor of a self-imposed single jobs mandate of easing monetary policy even with the economy growing at or close to potential output that is actually a target of growth forecast. The impact on the overall economy and the financial system of errors of policy are magnified by large-scale policy doses of trillions of dollars of quantitative easing and zero interest rates. The US economy has been experiencing financial repression as a result of negative real rates of interest during nearly a decade and programmed in monetary policy statements until 2015 or, for practical purposes, forever. The essential calculus of risk/return in capital budgeting and financial allocations has been distorted. If economic perspectives are doomed until 2015 such as to warrant zero interest rates and open-ended bond-buying by “printing” digital bank reserves (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-fed-printing-money-what-are.html; see Shultz et al 2012), rational investors and consumers will not invest and consume until just before interest rates are likely to increase. Monetary policy statements on intentions of zero interest rates for another three years or now virtually forever discourage investment and consumption or aggregate demand that can increase economic growth and generate more hiring and opportunities to increase wages and salaries. The doom scenario used to justify monetary policy accentuates adverse expectations on discounted future cash flows of potential economic projects that can revive the economy and create jobs. If it were possible to project the future with the central tendency of the monetary policy scenario and monetary policy tools do exist to reverse this adversity, why the tools have not worked before and even prevented the financial crisis? If there is such thing as “monetary policy science”, why it has such poor record and current inability to reverse production and employment adversity? There is no excuse of arguing that additional fiscal measures are needed because they were deployed simultaneously with similar ineffectiveness. Jon Hilsenrath, writing on “New view into Fed’s response to crisis,” on Feb 21, 2014, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303775504579396803024281322?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection), analyzes 1865 pages of transcripts of eight formal and six emergency policy meetings at the Fed in 2008 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomchistorical2008.htm). If there were an infallible science of central banking, models and forecasts would provide accurate information to policymakers on the future course of the economy in advance. Such forewarning is essential to central bank science because of the long lag between the actual impulse of monetary policy and the actual full effects on income and prices many months and even years ahead (Romer and Romer 2004, Friedman 1961, 1953, Culbertson 1960, 1961, Batini and Nelson 2002). Jon Hilsenrath, writing on “New view into Fed’s response to crisis,” on Feb 21, 2014, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303775504579396803024281322?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection), analyzed 1865 pages of transcripts of eight formal and six emergency policy meetings at the Fed in 2008 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomchistorical2008.htm). Jon Hilsenrath demonstrates that Fed policymakers frequently did not understand the current state of the US economy in 2008 and much less the direction of income and prices. The conclusion of Friedman (1953) that monetary impulses increase financial and economic instability because of lags in anticipating needs of policy, taking policy decisions and effects of decisions. This a fortiori true when untested unconventional monetary policy in gargantuan doses shocks the economy and financial markets.

Table I-2, US, Annual CPI Inflation ∆% 1914-2018

Year

Annual ∆%

1914

1.0

1915

1.0

1916

7.9

1917

17.4

1918

18.0

1919

14.6

1920

15.6

1921

-10.5

1922

-6.1

1923

1.8

1924

0.0

1925

2.3

1926

1.1

1927

-1.7

1928

-1.7

1929

0.0

1930

-2.3

1931

-9.0

1932

-9.9

1933

-5.1

1934

3.1

1935

2.2

1936

1.5

1937

3.6

1938

-2.1

1939

-1.4

1940

0.7

1941

5.0

1942

10.9

1943

6.1

1944

1.7

1945

2.3

1946

8.3

1947

14.4

1948

8.1

1949

-1.2

1950

1.3

1951

7.9

1952

1.9

1953

0.8

1954

0.7

1955

-0.4

1956

1.5

1957

3.3

1958

2.8

1959

0.7

1960

1.7

1961

1.0

1962

1.0

1963

1.3

1964

1.3

1965

1.6

1966

2.9

1967

3.1

1968

4.2

1969

5.5

1970

5.7

1971

4.4

1972

3.2

1973

6.2

1974

11.0

1975

9.1

1976

5.8

1977

6.5

1978

7.6

1979

11.3

1980

13.5

1981

10.3

1982

6.2

1983

3.2

1984

4.3

1985

3.6

1986

1.9

1987

3.6

1988

4.1

1989

4.8

1990

5.4

1991

4.2

1992

3.0

1993

3.0

1994

2.6

1995

2.8

1996

3.0

1997

2.3

1998

1.6

1999

2.2

2000

3.4

2001

2.8

2002

1.6

2003

2.3

2004

2.7

2005

3.4

2006

3.2

2007

2.8

2008

3.8

2009

-0.4

2010

1.6

2011

3.2

2012

2.1

2013

1.5

2014

1.6

2015

0.1

2016

1.3

2017

2.1

2018

2.4

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics https://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

Chart I-14 provides the consumer price index excluding food and energy from 1957 to 2019. There is long-term inflation in the US without episodes of persistent deflation.

Chart I-14, US, Consumer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 1957-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

Chart I-15 provides 12-month percentage changes of the consumer price index excluding food and energy from 1958 to 2019. There are three waves of inflation in the 1970s during the Great Inflation. There is no episode of deflation.

Chart I-15, US, Consumer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 1958-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

The consumer price index of housing is in Chart I-16. There was also acceleration during the Great Inflation of the 1970s. The index flattens after the global recession in IVQ2007 to IIQ2009. Housing prices collapsed under the weight of construction of several times more housing than needed. Surplus housing originated in subsidies and artificially low interest rates in the shock of unconventional monetary policy in 2003 to 2004 in fear of deflation.

Chart I-16, US, Consumer Price Index Housing, NSA, 1967-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

Chart I-17 provides 12-month percentage changes of the housing CPI. The Great Inflation also had extremely high rates of housing inflation. Housing is considered as potential hedge of inflation.

Chart I-17, US, Consumer Price Index, Housing, 12- Month Percentage Change, NSA, 1968-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

ID Current US Inflation. Consumer price inflation has fluctuated in recent months. Table I-3 provides 12-month consumer price inflation in Feb 2019 and annual equivalent percentage changes for the months from Dec 2018 to Feb 2019 of the CPI and major segments. The final column provides inflation from Jan 2019 to Feb 2019. CPI inflation increased 1.5 percent in the 12 months ending in Feb 2019. The annual equivalent rate from Dec 2018 to Feb 2019 was 0.8 percent in the new episode of reversal and renewed positions of carry trades from zero interest rates to commodities exposures; and the monthly inflation rate of 0.2 percent annualizes at 2.4 percent with oscillating carry trades at the margin. These inflation rates fluctuate in accordance with inducement of risk appetite or frustration by risk aversion of carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures. At the margin, the decline in commodity prices in sharp recent risk aversion in commodities markets caused lower inflation worldwide (with return in some countries in Dec 2012 and Jan-Feb 2013) that followed a jump in Aug-Sep 2012 because of the relaxed risk aversion resulting from the bond-buying program of the European Central Bank or Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) (http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html). Carry trades moved away from commodities into stocks with resulting weaker commodity prices and stronger equity valuations. There is reversal of exposures in commodities but with preferences of equities by investors. Geopolitical events in Eastern Europe and the Middle East together with economic conditions worldwide are inducing risk concerns in commodities at the margin. With zero or very low interest rates, commodity prices would increase again in an environment of risk appetite, as shown in past oscillating inflation. Excluding food and energy, core CPI inflation was 2.1 percent in the 12 months ending in Feb 2019 and 2.0 percent in annual equivalent from Dec 2018 to Feb 2019. There is no deflation in the US economy that could justify further unconventional monetary policy, which is now open-ended or forever with very low interest rates and cessation of bond-buying by the central bank but with reinvestment of interest and principal, or QE even if the economy grows back to potential. The FOMC is engaging in gradual reduction of the Fed balance sheet. Financial repression of very low interest rates is now intended as a permanent distortion of resource allocation by clouding risk/return decisions, preventing the economy from expanding along its optimal growth path. The FOMC is initiating reduction of the positions in securities held outright in the Fed’s balance sheet. Consumer food prices in the US increased 2.0 percent in 12 months ending in Feb 2019 and changed at 3.7 percent in annual equivalent from Dec 2018 to Feb 2019. Monetary policies stimulating carry trades of commodities futures that increase prices of food constitute a highly regressive tax on lower income families for whom food is a major portion of the consumption basket especially with wage increases below inflation in a recovery without hiring (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2019/02/dollar-revaluation-with-increases-in.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2019/01/recovery-without-hiring-labor.html). Energy consumer prices decreased 5.0 percent in 12 months, decreased at 19.4 percent in annual equivalent from Dec 2018 to Feb 2019 and increased 0.4 percent in Feb 2019 or at 4.9 percent in annual equivalent. Waves of inflation are induced by carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures, which are unwound and repositioned during alternating risk aversion and risk appetite originating in the European debt crisis and increasingly in growth, soaring debt and politics in China. For lower income families, food and energy are a major part of the family budget. Inflation is not persistently low or threatening deflation in annual equivalent in any of the categories in Table I-2 but simply reflecting waves of inflation originating in carry trades. Zero interest rates induce carry trades into commodity futures positions with episodes of risk aversion and portfolio reallocations causing fluctuations that determine an upward trend of prices.

Table I-3, US, Consumer Price Index Percentage Changes 12 months NSA and Annual Equivalent ∆%

% RI

∆% 12 Months Feb 2019/Feb
2018 NSA

∆% Annual Equivalent Dec 2018 to Feb 2019 SA

∆% Feb 2019/Jan 2018 SA

CPI All Items

100.000

1.5

0.8

0.2

CPI ex Food and Energy

79.478

2.1

2.0

0.1

Food

13.379

2.0

3.7

0.4

Food at Home

7.315

1.2

3.2

0.4

Food Away from Home

6.064

2.9

4.5

0.4

Energy

7.143

-5.0

-19.4

0.4

Gasoline

3.475

-9.1

-33.4

1.5

Electricity

2.605

0.0

-2.0

-0.3

Commodities less Food and Energy

19.609

0.1

0.8

-0.2

New Vehicles

3.740

0.3

0.0

-0.2

Used Cars and Trucks

2.399

1.1

-4.3

-0.7

Medical Care Commodities

1.711

-1.1

-5.1

-1.0

Apparel

3.000

-0.8

5.7

0.3

Services Less Energy Services

59.869

2.7

2.4

0.2

Shelter

33.307

3.4

3.7

0.3

Rent of Primary Residence

7.947

3.5

3.2

0.3

Owner’s Equivalent Rent of Residences

24.064

3.3

3.2

0.3

Transportation Services

5.962

1.1

-1.6

-0.1

Medical Care Services

7.004

2.4

2.8

0.0

% RI: Percent Relative Importance

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

Table I-4 provides weights of components in the consumer price of the US in Dec 2012. Housing has a weight of 41.021 percent. The combined weight of housing and transportation is 57.867 percent or more than one-half of consumer expenditures of all urban consumers. The combined weight of housing, transportation and food and beverages is 73.128 percent of the US CPI. Table I-3 provides relative importance of key items in Feb 2019.

Table I-4, US, Relative Importance, 2009-2010 Weights, of Components in the Consumer Price Index, US City Average, Dec 2012

All Items

100.000

Food and Beverages

15.261

  Food

   14.312

  Food at home

     8.898

  Food away from home

     5.713

Housing

41.021

  Shelter

    31.681

  Rent of primary residence

      6.545

  Owners’ equivalent rent

    22.622

Apparel

  3.564

Transportation

16.846

  Private Transportation

    15.657

  New vehicles

      3.189

  Used cars and trucks

      1.844

  Motor fuel

      5.462

    Gasoline

      5.274

Medical Care

7.163

  Medical care commodities

      1.714

  Medical care services

      5.448

Recreation

5.990

Education and Communication

6.779

Other Goods and Services

3.376

Refers to all urban consumers, covering approximately 87 percent of the US population (see http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiovrvw.htm#item1). Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiri2011.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiriar.htm http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiri2012.pdf

Chart I-18 provides the US consumer price index for housing from 2001 to 2019. Housing prices rose sharply during the decade until the bump of the global recession and increased again in 2011-2012 with some stabilization in 2013. There is renewed increase in 2014 followed by stabilization and renewed increase in 2015-2019. The CPI excluding housing would likely show much higher inflation. The commodity carry trades resulting from unconventional monetary policy have compressed income remaining after paying for indispensable shelter.

Chart I-18, US, Consumer Price Index, Housing, NSA, 2001-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

Chart I-19 provides 12-month percentage changes of the housing CPI. Percentage changes collapsed during the global recession but have been rising into positive territory in 2011 and 2012-2013 but with the rate declining and then increasing into 2014. There is decrease into 2015 followed by stability and marginal increase in 2016-19.

Chart I-19, US, Consumer Price Index, Housing, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2001-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

There have been waves of consumer price inflation in the US in 2011 and into 2019 (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2019/02/revaluation-of-yuanus-dollar-exchange.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2019/01/world-inflation-waves-world-financial_24.html) that are illustrated in Table I-5. The first wave occurred in Jan-Apr 2011 and was caused by the carry trade of commodity prices induced by unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates. Cheap money at zero opportunity cost in environment of risk appetite was channeled into financial risk assets, causing increases in commodity prices. The annual equivalent rate of increase of the all-items CPI in Jan-Apr 2011 was 4.9 percent and the CPI excluding food and energy increased at annual equivalent rate of 1.8 percent. The second wave occurred during the collapse of the carry trade from zero interest rates to exposures in commodity futures because of risk aversion in financial markets created by the sovereign debt crisis in Europe. The annual equivalent rate of increase of the all-items CPI dropped to 1.8 percent in May-Jun 2011 while the annual equivalent rate of the CPI excluding food and energy increased at 2.4 percent. In the third wave in Jul-Sep 2011, annual equivalent CPI inflation rose to 3.2 percent while the core CPI increased at 2.4 percent. The fourth wave occurred in the form of increase of the CPI all-items annual equivalent rate to 1.8 percent in Oct-Nov 2011 with the annual equivalent rate of the CPI excluding food and energy remaining at 2.4 percent. The fifth wave occurred in Dec 2011 to Jan 2012 with annual equivalent headline inflation of 1.8 percent and core inflation of 2.4 percent. In the sixth wave, headline CPI inflation increased at annual equivalent 2.4 percent in Feb-Apr 2012 and 2.0 percent for the core CPI. The seventh wave in May-Jul occurred with annual equivalent inflation of minus 1.2 percent for the headline CPI in May-Jul 2012 and 2.0 percent for the core CPI. The eighth wave is with annual equivalent inflation of 6.8 percent in Aug-Sep 2012 but 5.7 percent including Oct. In the ninth wave, annual equivalent inflation in Nov 2012 was minus 2.4 percent under the new shock of risk aversion and 0.0 percent in Dec 2012 with annual equivalent of 0.0 percent in Nov 2012-Jan 2013 and 2.0 percent for the core CPI. In the tenth wave, annual equivalent of the headline CPI was 6.2 percent in Feb 2013 and 1.2 percent for the core CPI. In the eleventh wave, annual equivalent was minus 3.0 percent in Mar-Apr 2013 and 0.6 percent for the core index. In the twelfth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 1.4 percent in May-Sep 2013 and 2.2 percent for the core CPI. In the thirteenth wave, annual equivalent CPI inflation in Oct-Nov 2013 was 1.8 percent and 1.8 percent for the core CPI. Inflation returned in the fourteenth wave at 2.4 percent for the headline CPI index and 1.8 percent for the core CPI in annual equivalent for Dec 2013 to Mar 2014. In the fifteenth wave, inflation moved to annual equivalent 1.8 percent for the headline index in Apr-Jul 2014 and 2.1 percent for the core index. In the sixteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 0.0 percent in Aug 2014 and 1.2 percent for the core index. In the seventeenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 0.0 percent for the headline CPI and 2.4 percent for the core in Sep-Oct 2014. In the eighteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 4.3 percent for the headline index in Nov 2014-Jan 2015 and 1.2 percent for the core. In the nineteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 2.9 percent for the headline index and 1.9 percent for the core index in Feb-Jun 2015. In the twentieth wave, annual equivalent inflation was at 2.4 percent in Jul 2015 for the headline and core indexes. In the twenty-first wave, consumer prices decreased at 1.2 percent in annual equivalent in Aug-Sep 2015. In the twenty-second wave, consumer prices increased at annual equivalent 1.2 percent for the central index and 2.4 percent for the core in Oct-Nov 2015. In the twenty-third wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 0.6 percent for the headline CPI in Dec 2015 to Jan 2016 and 1.8 percent for the core. In the twenty-fourth wave, annual equivalent was minus 2.4 percent and 2.4 percent for the core in Feb 2016. In the twenty-fifth wave, annual equivalent inflation was at 3.0 percent for the central index in Mar-Apr 2016 and at 1.8 percent for the core index. In the twenty-sixth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 3.7 percent for the central CPI in May-Jun 2016 and 2.4 percent for the core CPI. In the twenty-seventh wave, annual equivalent inflation was 0.0 percent for the central CPI and 1.2 percent for the core in Jul 2016. In the twenty-eighth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 2.4 percent for the headline CPI in Aug 2016 and 3.7 percent for the core. In the twenty-ninth wave, CPI prices increased at annual equivalent 3.0 percent in Sep-Oct 2016 while the core CPI increased at 1.2 percent. In the thirtieth wave, annual equivalent CPI prices increased at 2.4 percent in Nov-Dec 2016 while the core CPI increased at 2.4 percent. In the thirty-first wave, CPI prices increased at annual equivalent 4.9 percent in Jan 2017 while the core index increased at 2.4 percent. In the thirty-second wave, CPI prices changed at annual equivalent 1.2 percent in Feb 2017 while the core increased at 2.4 percent. In the thirty-third wave, CPI prices decreased at annual equivalent 1.2 percent in Mar 2017 while the core index fell at 1.2 percent. In the thirty-fourth wave, CPI prices increased at 1.2 percent annual equivalent in Apr 2017 while the core index increased at 1.2 percent. In the thirty-fifth wave, CPI prices increased at annual equivalent 0.6 in May-Jun 2017 while core prices increased at 1.2 percent. In the thirty-sixth wave, CPI prices increased at annual equivalent 1.2 percent in Jul 2017 while core prices increased at 1.2 percent. In the thirty-seventh wave, CPI prices increased at annual equivalent 5.5 percent in Aug-Sep 2017 while core prices increased at 2.4 percent. In the thirty-eighth wave, CPI prices increased at 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Oct-Nov 2017 while core prices increased at 1.8 percent. In the thirty-ninth wave, CPI prices increased at 3.2 percent annual equivalent in Dec 2017-Feb 2018 while core prices increased at 2.8 percent. In the fortieth wave, CPI prices increased at 1.2 percent annual equivalent in Mar 2018 while core prices increased at 2.4 percent. In the forty-first wave, CPI prices increased at 3.0 percent annual equivalent in Apr-May 2018 while core prices increased at 1.8 percent. In the forty-second wave, CPI prices increased at 1.8 percent in Jun-Sep 2018 while core prices increased at 2.1 percent. In the forty-third wave, CPI prices increased at annual equivalent 3.7 percent in Oct 2018 while core prices increased at 2.4 percent. In the forty-fourth wave, CPI prices changed at 0.0 percent annual equivalent in Nov 2018-Jan 2019 while core prices increased at 2.4 percent. In the forty-fifth wave, CPI prices increased at 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Feb 2019 while core prices increased at 1.2 percent. The conclusion is that inflation accelerates and decelerates in unpredictable fashion because of shocks or risk aversion and portfolio reallocations in carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity derivatives.

Table I-5, US, Headline and Core CPI Inflation Monthly SA and 12 Months NSA ∆%

All Items 

SA Month

All Items NSA 12 month

Core SA
Month

Core NSA
12 months

Feb 2019

0.2

1.5

0.1

2.1

AE ∆% Feb

2.4

1.2

Jan

0.0

1.6

0.2

2.2

Dec 2018

0.0

1.9

0.2

2.2

Nov

0.0

2.2

0.2

2.2

AE ∆% Nov-Jan

0.0

2.4

Oct

0.3

2.5

0.2

2.1

AE ∆% Oct

3.7

2.4

Sep

0.1

2.3

0.2

2.2

Aug

0.1

2.7

0.1

2.2

Jul

0.2

2.9

0.2

2.4

Jun

0.2

2.9

0.2

2.3

AE ∆% Jun-Sep

1.8

2.1

May

0.3

2.8

0.2

2.2

Apr

0.2

2.5

0.1

2.1

AE ∆% Apr-May

3.0

1.8

Mar

0.1

2.4

0.2

2.1

AE ∆% Mar

1.2

2.4

Feb

0.2

2.2

0.2

1.8

Jan

0.4

2.1

0.3

1.8

Dec 2017

0.2

2.1

0.2

1.8

AE ∆% Dec-Feb

3.2

2.8

Nov

0.3

2.2

0.1

1.7

Oct

0.1

2.0

0.2

1.8

AE ∆% Oct-Nov

2.4

1.8

Sep

0.5

2.2

0.2

1.7

Aug

0.4

1.9

0.2

1.7

AE ∆% Aug-Sep

5.5

2.4

Jul

0.1

1.7

0.1

1.7

AE ∆% Jul

1.2

1.2

Jun

0.1

1.6

0.1

1.7

May

0.0

1.9

0.1

1.7

AE ∆% May-Jun

0.6

1.2

Apr

0.1

2.2

0.1

1.9

AE ∆% Apr

1.2

1.2

Mar

-0.1

2.4

-0.1

2.0

AE ∆% Mar

-1.2

-1.2

Feb

0.1

2.7

0.2

2.2

AE ∆% Feb

1.2

2.4

Jan

0.4

2.5

0.2

2.3

AE ∆% Jan

4.9

2.4

Dec 2016

0.3

2.1

0.2

2.2

Nov

0.1

1.7

0.2

2.1

AE ∆% Nov-Dec

2.4

2.4

Oct

0.3

1.6

0.1

2.1

Sep

0.2

1.5

0.1

2.2

AE ∆% Sep-Oct

3.0

1.2

Aug

0.2

1.1

0.3

2.3

AE ∆ Aug

2.4

3.7

Jul

0.0

0.8

0.1

2.2

AE ∆% Jul

0.0

1.2

Jun

0.3

1.0

0.2

2.2

May

0.3

1.0

0.2

2.2

AE ∆% May-Jun

3.7

2.4

Apr

0.3

1.1

0.2

2.1

Mar

0.2

0.9

0.1

2.2

AE ∆% Mar-Apr

3.0

1.8

Feb

-0.2

1.0

0.2

2.3

AE ∆% Feb

-2.4

2.4

Jan

0.0

1.4

0.2

2.2

Dec 2015

-0.1

0.7

0.1

2.1

AE ∆% Dec-Jan

-0.6

1.8

Nov

0.1

0.5

0.2

2.0

Oct

0.1

0.2

0.2

1.9

AE ∆% Oct-Nov

1.2

2.4

Sep

-0.2

0.0

0.2

1.9

Aug

0.0

0.2

0.1

1.8

AE ∆% Aug-Sep

-1.2

1.8

Jul

0.2

0.2

0.2

1.8

AE ∆% Jul

2.4

2.4

Jun

0.3

0.1

0.2

1.8

May

0.3

0.0

0.1

1.7

Apr

0.1

-0.2

0.2

1.8

Mar

0.3

-0.1

0.2

1.8

Feb

0.2

0.0

0.1

1.7

AE ∆% Feb-Jun

2.9

1.9

Jan

-0.6

-0.1

0.1

1.6

Dec 2014

-0.3

0.8

0.1

1.6

Nov

-0.2

1.3

0.1

1.7

AE ∆% Nov-Jan

-4.3

1.2

Oct

0.0

1.7

0.2

1.8

Sep

0.0

1.7

0.2

1.7

AE ∆% Sep-Oct

0.0

2.4

Aug

0.0

1.7

0.1

1.7

AE ∆% Aug

0.0

1.2

Jul

0.1

2.0

0.2

1.9

Jun

0.1

2.1

0.1

1.9

May

0.2

2.1

0.2

2.0

Apr

0.2

2.0

0.2

1.8

AE ∆% Apr-Jul

1.8

2.1

Mar

0.2

1.5

0.2

1.7

Feb

0.1

1.1

0.1

1.6

Jan

0.2

1.6

0.1

1.6

Dec 2013

0.3

1.5

0.2

1.7

AE ∆% Dec-Mar

2.4

1.8

Nov

0.2

1.2

0.2

1.7

Oct

0.1

1.0

0.1

1.7

AE ∆%

Oct-Nov

1.8

1.8

Sep

0.0

1.2

0.2

1.7

Aug

0.2

1.5

0.2

1.8

Jul

0.2

2.0

0.2

1.7

Jun

0.2

1.8

0.2

1.6

May

0.0

1.4

0.1

1.7

AE ∆%

May-Sep

1.4

2.2

Apr

-0.2

1.1

0.0

1.7

Mar

-0.3

1.5

0.1

1.9

AE ∆%

Mar-Apr

-3.0

0.6

Feb

0.5

2.0

0.1

2.0

AE ∆% Feb

6.2

1.2

Jan

0.2

1.6

0.2

1.9

Dec 2012

0.0

1.7

0.2

1.9

Nov

-0.2

1.8

0.1

1.9

AE ∆% Nov-Jan

0.0

2.0

Oct

0.3

2.2

0.2

2.0

Sep

0.5

2.0

0.2

2.0

Aug

0.6

1.7

0.1

1.9

AE ∆% Aug-Oct

5.7

2.0

Jul

0.0

1.4

0.2

2.1

Jun

-0.1

1.7

0.2

2.2

May

-0.2

1.7

0.1

2.3

AE ∆% May-Jul

-1.2

2.0

Apr

0.2

2.3

0.2

2.3

Mar

0.2

2.7

0.2

2.3

Feb

0.2

2.9

0.1

2.2

AE ∆% Feb-Apr

2.4

2.0

Jan

0.3

2.9

0.2

2.3

Dec 2011

0.0

3.0

0.2

2.2

AE ∆% Dec-Jan

1.8

2.4

Nov

0.2

3.4

0.2

2.2

Oct

0.1

3.5

0.2

2.1

AE ∆% Oct-Nov

1.8

2.4

Sep

0.2

3.9

0.1

2.0

Aug

0.3

3.8

0.3

2.0

Jul

0.3

3.6

0.2

1.8

AE ∆% Jul-Sep

3.2

2.4

Jun

0.0

3.6

0.2

1.6

May

0.3

3.6

0.2

1.5

AE ∆%  May-Jun

1.8

2.4

Apr

0.5

3.2

0.1

1.3

Mar

0.5

2.7

0.1

1.2

Feb

0.3

2.1

0.2

1.1

Jan

0.3

1.6

0.2

1.0

AE ∆%  Jan-Apr

4.9

1.8

Dec 2010

0.4

1.5

0.1

0.8

Nov

0.3

1.1

0.1

0.8

Oct

0.3

1.2

0.1

0.6

Sep

0.2

1.1

0.1

0.8

Aug

0.1

1.1

0.1

0.9

Jul

0.2

1.2

0.1

0.9

Jun

0.0

1.1

0.1

0.9

May

-0.1

2.0

0.1

0.9

Apr

0.0

2.2

0.0

0.9

Mar

0.0

2.3

0.0

1.1

Feb

-0.1

2.1

0.0

1.3

Jan

0.1

2.6

-0.1

1.6

Note: Core: excluding food and energy; AE: annual equivalent

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

The behavior of the US consumer price index NSA from 2001 to 2019 is in Chart I-20. Inflation in the US is very dynamic without deflation risks that would justify symmetric inflation targets. The hump in 2008 originated in the carry trade from interest rates dropping to zero into commodity futures. There is no other explanation for the increase of the Cushing OK Crude Oil Future Contract 1 from $55.64/barrel on Jan 9, 2007 to $145.29/barrel on July 3, 2008 during deep global recession, collapsing under a panic of flight into government obligations and the US dollar to $37.51/barrel on Feb 13, 2009 and then rising by carry trades to $113.93/barrel on Apr 29, 2012, collapsing again and then recovering again to $105.23/barrel, all during mediocre economic recovery with peaks and troughs influenced by bouts of risk appetite and risk aversion (data from the US Energy Information Administration EIA, http://www.eia.gov/). The unwinding of the carry trade with the TARP announcement of toxic assets in banks channeled cheap money into government obligations (see Cochrane and Zingales 2009).

Chart I-20, US, Consumer Price Index, NSA, 2001-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

Chart I-21 provides 12-month percentage changes of the consumer price index from 2001 to 2019. There was no deflation or threat of deflation from 2008 into 2009. Commodity prices collapsed during the panic of toxic assets in banks. When stress tests in 2009 revealed US bank balance sheets in much stronger position, cheap money at zero opportunity cost exited government obligations and flowed into carry trades of risk financial assets. Increases in commodity prices drove again the all items CPI with interruptions during risk aversion originating in multiple fears but especially from the sovereign debt crisis of Europe.

Chart I-21, US, Consumer Price Index, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2001-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

The trend of increase of the consumer price index excluding food and energy in Chart I-22 does not reveal any threat of deflation that would justify symmetric inflation targets. There are mild oscillations in a neat upward trend.

Chart I-22, US, Consumer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 2001-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

Chart I-23 provides 12-month percentage change of the consumer price index excluding food and energy. Past-year rates of inflation fell toward 1 percent from 2001 into 2003 because of the recession and the decline of commodity prices beginning before the recession with declines of real oil prices. Near zero interest rates with fed funds at 1 percent between Jun 2003 and Jun 2004 stimulated carry trades of all types, including in buying homes with subprime mortgages in expectation that low interest rates forever would increase home prices permanently, creating the equity that would permit the conversion of subprime mortgages into creditworthy mortgages (Gorton 2009EFM; see http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/causes-of-2007-creditdollar-crisis.html). Inflation rose and then collapsed during the unwinding of carry trades and the housing debacle of the global recession. Carry trades into 2011 and 2012 gave a new impulse to CPI inflation, all items and core. Symmetric inflation targets destabilize the economy by encouraging hunts for yields that inflate and deflate financial assets, obscuring risk/return decisions on production, investment, consumption and hiring.

Chart I-23, US, Consumer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2001-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

Headline and core producer price indexes are in Table I-6. The headline PPI SA increased 0.2 percent in Feb 2019 and increased 0.5 percent NSA in the 12 months ending in Feb 2019. The core PPI SA increased 0.1 percent in Feb 2019 and increased 2.7 percent in 12 months. Analysis of annual equivalent rates of change shows inflation waves similar to those worldwide. In the first wave, the absence of risk aversion from the sovereign risk crisis in Europe motivated the carry trade from zero interest rates into commodity futures that caused the annual equivalent rate of 11.1 percent in the headline PPI in Jan-Apr 2011 and 3.7 percent in the core PPI. In the second wave, commodity futures prices collapsed in Jun 2011 with the return of risk aversion originating in the sovereign risk crisis of Europe. The annual equivalent rate of headline PPI inflation collapsed to 0.6 percent in May-Jun 2011 but the core annual equivalent inflation rate was higher at 2.4 percent. In the third wave, headline PPI inflation resuscitated with annual equivalent at 4.1 percent in Jul-Sep 2011 and core PPI inflation at 3.2 percent. Core PPI inflation was persistent throughout 2011, jumping from annual equivalent at 2.0 percent in the first three months of 2010 to 3.0 percent in 12 months ending in Dec 2011. Unconventional monetary policy is based on the proposition that core rates reflect more fundamental inflation and are thus better predictors of the future. In practice, the relation of core and headline inflation is as difficult to predict as future inflation (see IIID Supply Shocks in http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html). In the fourth wave, risk aversion originating in the lack of resolution of the European debt crisis caused unwinding of carry trades with annual equivalent headline PPI inflation of 0.0 percent in Oct-Dec 2011 and 2.0 percent in the core annual equivalent. In the fifth wave from Jan to Mar 2012, annual equivalent inflation was 3.2 percent for the headline index but 3.2 percent for the core index excluding food and energy. In the sixth wave, annual equivalent inflation in Apr-May 2012 during renewed risk aversion was minus 4.1 percent for the headline PPI and 1.8 percent for the core. In the seventh wave, continuing risk aversion caused reversal of carry trades into commodity exposures with annual equivalent headline inflation of minus 1.2 percent in Jun-Jul 2012 while core PPI inflation was at annual equivalent 3.7 percent. In the eighth wave, relaxed risk aversion because of the announcement of the impaired bond buying program or Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) of the European Central Bank (http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html) induced carry trades that drove annual equivalent inflation of producer prices of the United States at 13.4 percent in Aug-Sep 2012 and 1.2 percent in the core index. In the ninth wave, renewed risk aversion caused annual equivalent inflation of minus 2.4 percent in Oct 2012-Dec 2012 in the headline index and 1.2 percent in the core index. In the tenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 7.4 percent in the headline index in Jan-Feb 2013 and 1.8 percent in the core index. In the eleventh wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 7.0 percent in Mar-Apr 2012 and 1.2 percent for the core index. In the twelfth wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 2.7 percent in May-Aug 2013 and 1.2 percent in the core index. In the thirteenth wave, portfolio reallocations away from commodities and into equities reversed commodity carry trade with annual equivalent inflation of 0.8 percent in Sep-Nov 2013 in the headline PPI and 1.6 percent in the core. In the fourteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 5.7 percent annual equivalent for the headline index in Dec 2013-Feb 2014 and 3.7 percent for the core index. In the fifteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 3.7 percent for the general PPI index in Mar 2014 and 0.0 percent for the core PPI index. In the sixteenth wave, annual equivalent headline PPI inflation increased at 0.9 percent in Apr-Jul 2014 and 1.8 percent for the core PPI. In the seventeenth wave, annual equivalent inflation in Aug-Nov 2014 was minus 2.7 percent and 1.8 percent for the core index. In the eighteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation fell at 17.6 percent for the general index in Dec 2014 to Jan 2015 and increased at 3.7 percent in the core index. In the nineteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation increased at 2.4 percent in Feb 2015 and increased at 3.7 percent for the core index. In the twentieth wave, annual equivalent producer prices increased at 3.7 percent in Mar 2015 and the core at 1.2 percent. In the twenty-first wave, producer prices fell at 7.0 percent annual equivalent in Apr 2015 while the core index increased at 1.2 percent. In the twenty-second wave, producer prices increased at annual equivalent 10.7 percent in May-Jun 2015 and core producer prices at 2.4 percent. In the twenty-third wave, producer prices fell at 2.4 percent in Jul 2015 and the core index increased at 2.4 percent. In the twenty-fourth wave, annual equivalent inflation fell at 7.4 percent in Aug-Oct 2015 and the core index changed at 0.0 percent annual equivalent. In the twenty-fifth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 2.4 percent in Nov 2015 with the core at 1.2 percent. In the twenty-sixth wave, the headline PPI fell at annual equivalent 6.6 percent and the core increased at 2.8 percent in Dec 2015-Feb 2016. In the twenty-seventh wave, annual equivalent inflation was 4.5 percent for the central index in Mar-May 2016 and 2.0 percent for the core. In the twenty-eighth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 8.7 percent for the headline index in Jun 2016 and 3.7 percent for the core. In the twenty-ninth wave, producer prices fell at annual equivalent 1.2 percent in Jul 2016 and core producer prices changed at 0.0 percent. In the thirtieth wave, producer prices fell at 3.5 percent annual equivalent in Aug 2016 while core producer prices increased at 2.4 percent. In the thirty-first wave, producer prices increased at annual equivalent 5.5 percent in Sep-Oct 2016 while core prices increased at 1.8 percent. In the thirty-second wave, producer prices decreased at 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Nov 2016 and the core index increased at 1.2 percent. In the thirty-third wave, producer prices increased at 11.4 percent in Dec 2016 and the core index increased at 2.4 percent. In the thirty-fourth wave, producer prices increased at 8.7 percent in Jan 2017 while the core increased at 2.4 percent. In the thirty-fifth wave, producer prices increased at 2.4 percent in Feb 2017 while the core index increased at 2.4 percent. In the thirty-sixth wave, producer prices increased at annual equivalent 2.4 percent in Mar 2017 while core producer prices increased at 2.4 percent. In the thirty-seventh wave, annual equivalent inflation of the headline index was at 6.2 percent in Apr 2017 and 4.9 percent for the core. In the thirty-eighth wave, producer prices fell at 9.2 percent annual equivalent in May 2017 while core producer prices changed at 1.2 percent. In the thirty-ninth wave, producer prices increased at annual equivalent 1.2 percent in Jun 2017 while core producer prices increased at 1.2 percent. In the fortieth wave, headline producer prices fell at 1.2 percent annual equivalent in Jul 2017 while core prices increased at 1.2 percent. In the forty-first wave, central producer prices increased at 6.8 percent annual equivalent in Aug-Sep 2017 while core prices increased at 1.2 percent. In the forty-second wave, producer prices increased at annual equivalent 7.4 percent in Oct-Nov 2017 while core producer prices increased at 4.3 percent. In the forty-third wave, producer prices increased at annual equivalent 1.2 percent in Dec 2017 while core prices changed at 0.0 percent. In the forty-fourth wave, producer prices increased at 4.9 percent annual equivalent in Jan 2018 while core producer prices changed at 1.2 percent. In the forty-fifth wave, producer prices changed at annual equivalent 0.0 percent in Feb 2018 while core prices increased at 2.4 percent. In the forty-sixth wave, producer prices increased at 3.7 percent annual equivalent in Mar 2018 while core prices increased at 2.4 percent. In the forty-seventh wave, producer prices fell at 1.2 percent annual equivalent in Apr 2018 while core prices increased at 2.4 percent. In the forty-eighth wave, producer prices increased at annual equivalent 8.7 percent in May 2018 while core prices increased at 2.4 percent. In the forty-ninth wave, producer prices increased at annual equivalent 1.8 percent in Jun-Jul 2018 while core prices increased at 3.0 percent. In the fiftieth wave, producer prices fell at annual equivalent 0.6 percent in Aug-Sep 2018 while core prices increased at 2.4 percent. In the fifty-first wave, producer prices increased at annual equivalent 10.0 percent in Oct 2018 while core prices increased at 2.4 percent. In the fifty-second wave, producer prices decreased at annual equivalent 7.0 percent in Nov 2018-Jan 2019 while core prices increased at 2.8 percent. In the forty-third wave, producer prices increased at annual equivalent 2.4 percent in Feb 2019 while core prices increased at 1.2 percent. It is almost impossible to forecast PPI inflation and its relation to CPI inflation. “Inflation surprise” by monetary policy could be proposed to climb along a downward sloping Phillips curve, resulting in higher inflation but lower unemployment (see Kydland and Prescott 1977, Barro and Gordon 1983 and past comments of this blog http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html). The architects of monetary policy would require superior inflation forecasting ability compared to forecasting naivety by everybody else. In practice, we are all naïve in forecasting inflation and other economic variables and events.

Table I-6, US, Headline and Core PPI Inflation Monthly SA and 12-Month NSA ∆%

Finished
Goods SA
Month

Finished
Goods NSA 12 months

Finished Core SA
Month

Finished Core NSA
12 months

Feb 2019

0.2

0.5

0.1

2.7

AE Feb

2.4

1.2

Jan

-0.7

0.3

0.5

2.8

Dec 2018

-0.1

1.4

0.1

2.5

Nov

-1.0

1.6

0.1

2.4

AE Nov-Jan

-7.0

2.8

Oct

0.8

3.7

0.2

2.5

AE Oct

10.0

2.4

Sep

-0.1

3.2

0.2

2.8

Aug

0.0

3.7

0.2

2.6

AE Aug-Sep

-0.6

2.4

Jul

0.2

4.3

0.3

2.4

Jun

0.1

4.1

0.2

2.1

AE Jun-Jul

1.8

3.0

May

0.7

4.1

0.2

2.1

AE May

8.7

2.4

Apr

-0.1

2.4

0.2

1.9

AE Apr

-1.2

2.4

Mar

0.3

3.0

0.2

2.0

AE Mar

3.7

2.4

Feb

0.0

2.7

0.2

2.0

AE Feb

0.0

2.4

Jan

0.4

2.9

0.1

1.8

AE Jan

4.9

1.2

Dec 2017

0.1

3.2

0.0

2.0

AE Dec

1.2

0.0

Nov

1.0

4.2

0.3

2.1

Oct

0.2

2.9

0.4

2.0

AE Oct-Nov

7.4

4.3

Sep

0.6

3.3

0.0

1.7

Aug

0.5

3.0

0.2

1.8

AE Aug-Sep

6.8

1.2

Jul

-0.1

2.1

0.1

1.8

AE Jul

-1.2

1.2

Jun

0.1

2.1

0.1

1.7

AE Jun

1.2

1.2

May

-0.8

2.8

0.1

1.9

AE May

-9.2

1.2

Apr

0.5

4.0

0.4

2.0

AE Apr

6.2

4.9

Mar

0.2

3.8

0.2

1.8

AE Mar

2.4

2.4

Feb

0.2

3.8

0.2

1.6

AE Feb

2.4

2.4

Jan

0.7

2.9

0.2

1.7

AE Jan

8.7

2.4

Dec 2016

0.9

1.9

0.2

1.7

AE Dec

11.4

2.4

Nov

-0.2

0.4

0.1

1.6

AE Nov

-2.4

1.2

Oct

0.5

0.7

0.2

1.6

Sep

0.4

-0.1

0.1

1.4

AE Sep-Oct

5.5

1.8

Aug

-0.3

-1.9

0.2

1.4

AE Aug

-3.5

2.4

Jul

-0.1

-2.0

0.0

1.2

AE Jul

-1.2

0.0

Jun

0.7

-2.0

0.3

1.5

AE Jun

8.7

3.7

May

0.5

-2.2

0.2

1.6

Apr

0.3

-1.5

0.2

1.6

Mar

0.3

-2.3

0.1

1.5

AE Mar-May

4.5

2.0

Feb

-0.7

-2.0

0.2

1.5

Jan

-0.3

-1.2

0.3

1.7

Dec 2015

-0.7

-2.7

0.2

1.8

AE Dec-Feb

-6.6

2.8

Nov

0.2

-3.3

0.1

1.7

AE Nov

2.4

1.2

Oct

-0.3

-4.0

-0.1

1.8

Sep

-1.3

-4.1

0.1

2.1

Aug

-0.3

-3.1

0.0

2.1

AE ∆% Aug-Oct

-7.4

0.0

Jul

-0.2

-2.8

0.2

2.3

AE ∆% Jul

-2.4

2.4

Jun

0.6

-2.6

0.5

2.3

May

1.1

-2.9

0.1

2.0

AE ∆% May-Jun

10.7

2.4

Apr

-0.6

-4.5

0.1

2.0

AE ∆% Apr

-7.0

1.2

Mar

0.3

-3.3

0.1

2.1

AE ∆% Mar

3.7

1.2

Feb

0.2

-3.2

0.3

1.9

AE ∆% Feb

2.4

3.7

Jan

-1.8

-3.0

0.5

1.7

Dec 2014

-1.4

-0.6

0.1

1.7

AE ∆% Dec-Jan

-17.6

3.7

Nov

-0.3

1.1

0.0

2.0

Oct

-0.3

1.8

0.3

2.2

Sep

-0.3

2.2

0.1

2.1

Aug

0.0

2.3

0.2

1.9

AE ∆% Aug-Nov

-2.7

1.8

July

0.0

2.9

0.1

1.9

Jun

0.2

2.8

0.2

1.9

May

-0.3

2.5

0.2

1.8

Apr

0.4

3.1

0.1

1.7

AE ∆% Apr-Jul

0.9

1.8

Mar

0.3

1.8

0.0

1.7

AE ∆% Mar

3.7

0.0

Feb

0.2

1.3

0.1

1.9

Jan

0.8

1.6

0.4

2.0

Dec 2013

0.4

1.4

0.4

1.6

AE ∆% Dec-Feb

5.7

3.7

Nov

0.3

0.8

0.2

1.3

Oct

0.2

0.3

0.1

1.2

Sep

-0.3

0.2

0.1

1.2

AE ∆% Sep-Nov

0.8

1.6

Aug

0.5

1.2

0.1

1.2

Jul

-0.1

2.1

0.1

1.3

Jun

0.1

2.3

0.1

1.6

May

0.4

1.6

0.1

1.7

AE ∆%  May-Aug

2.7

1.2

Apr

-0.6

0.5

0.1

1.7

Mar

-0.6

1.1

0.1

1.7

AE ∆%  Mar-Apr

-7.0

1.2

Feb

0.6

1.8

0.2

1.8

Jan

0.6

1.5

0.1

1.8

AE ∆%  Jan-Feb

7.4

1.8

Dec 2012

-0.2

1.4

0.0

2.1

Nov

-0.5

1.4

0.2

2.2

Oct

0.1

2.3

0.1

2.2

AE ∆%  Oct-Dec

-2.4

1.2

Sep

0.9

2.1

0.0

2.4

Aug

1.2

1.9

0.2

2.6

AE ∆% Aug-Sep

13.4

1.2

Jul

0.2

0.5

0.4

2.6

Jun

-0.4

0.7

0.2

2.6

AE ∆% Jun-Jul

-1.2

3.7

May

-0.6

0.6

0.1

2.7

Apr

-0.1

1.8

0.2

2.7

AE ∆% Apr-May

-4.1

1.8

Mar

0.1

2.7

0.2

2.9

Feb

0.3

3.4

0.2

3.1

Jan

0.4

4.1

0.4

3.1

AE ∆% Jan-Mar

3.2

3.2

Dec 2011

-0.1

4.7

0.2

3.0

Nov

0.3

5.7

0.1

3.0

Oct

-0.2

5.9

0.2

2.9

AE ∆% Oct-Dec

0.0

2.0

Sep

0.9

7.1

0.3

2.8

Aug

-0.3

6.6

0.2

2.7

Jul

0.4

7.2

0.3

2.7

AE ∆% Jul-Sep

4.1

3.2

Jun

-0.4

7.0

0.3

2.3

May

0.5

7.1

0.1

2.1

AE ∆%  May-Jun

0.6

2.4

Apr

0.9

6.7

0.3

2.3

Mar

0.7

5.7

0.3

2.0

Feb

1.1

5.5

0.2

1.8

Jan

0.8

3.7

0.4

1.6

AE ∆%  Jan-Apr

11.1

3.7

Dec 2010

0.9

3.8

0.2

1.4

Nov

0.4

3.4

0.0

1.2

Oct

0.8

4.3

0.0

1.6

Sep

0.3

3.9

0.2

1.6

Aug

0.6

3.3

0.1

1.3

Jul

0.1

4.1

0.1

1.5

Jun

-0.3

2.7

0.1

1.1

May

0.0

5.1

0.3

1.3

Apr

0.0

5.4

0.0

0.9

Mar

0.7

5.9

0.2

0.9

Feb

-0.7

4.1

0.1

1.0

Jan

1.0

4.5

0.2

1.0

Note: Core: excluding food and energy; AE: annual equivalent

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/ppi/data.htm

The US producer price index NSA from 2000 to 2019 is in Chart I-24. There are two episodes of decline of the PPI during recessions in 2001 and in 2008. Barsky and Kilian (2004) consider the 2001 episode as one in which real oil prices were declining when recession began. Recession and the fall of commodity prices instead of generalized deflation explain the behavior of US inflation in 2008. There is similar collapse of producer prices into 2015 as in 2009 caused by the drop of

commodity prices.

Chart I-24, US, Producer Price Index, NSA, 2000-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Twelve-month percentage changes of the PPI NSA from 2000 to 2019 are in Chart I-25. It may be possible to forecast trends a few months in the future under adaptive expectations but turning points are almost impossible to anticipate especially when related to fluctuations of commodity prices in response to risk aversion. In a sense, monetary policy has been tied to behavior of the PPI in the negative 12-month rates in 2001 to 2003 and then again in 2009 to 2010. There is similar sharp decline of inflation into 2015 caused by the drop of commodities. Monetary policy following deflation fears caused by commodity price fluctuations would introduce significant volatility and risks in financial markets and eventually in consumption and investment.

Chart I-25, US, Producer Price Index, 12-Month Percentage Change NSA, 2000-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

The US PPI excluding food and energy from 2000 to 2019 is in Chart I-26. There is here again a smooth trend of inflation instead of prolonged deflation as in Japan.

Chart I-26, US, Producer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 2000-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Twelve-month percentage changes of the producer price index excluding food and energy are in Chart I-27. Fluctuations replicate those in the headline PPI. There is an evident trend of increase of 12-month rates of core PPI inflation in 2011 but lower rates in 2012-2014. Prices rose less rapidly into 2015-2018 as during earlier fluctuations.

Chart I-27, US, Producer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 12-Month Percentage Changes, 2000-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

The US producer price index of energy goods from 2000 to 2019 is in Chart I-28. There is a clear upward trend with fluctuations, which would not occur under persistent deflation.

Chart I-28, US, Producer Price Index Finished Energy Goods, NSA, 2000-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Chart I-29 provides 12-month percentage changes of the producer price index of energy goods from 2000 to 2019. Barsky and Killian (2004) relate the episode of declining prices of energy goods in 2001 to 2002 to the analysis of decline of real oil prices. Interest rates dropping to zero during the global recession in 2008 induced carry trades that explain the rise of the PPI of energy goods toward 30 percent. Bouts of risk aversion with policy interest rates held close to zero explain the fluctuations in the 12-month rates of the PPI of energy goods in the expansion phase of the economy. Symmetric inflation targets induce significant instability in inflation and interest rates with adverse effects on financial markets and the overall economy.

Chart I-29, US, Producer Price Index Energy Goods, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2000-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Effective with the January 2014 Producer Price Index (PPI) data release in February 2014 (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ppi_02192014.pdf 8), “BLS transitions from the Stage of Processing (SOP) to the Final Demand-Intermediate Demand (FD-ID) aggregation system. This shift results in significant changes to the PPI news release, as well as other documents available from PPI. The transition to the FD-ID system is the culmination of a long-standing PPI objective to improve the current SOP aggregation system by incorporating PPIs for services, construction, government purchases, and exports. In comparison to the SOP system, the FD-ID system more than doubles PPI coverage of the United States economy to over 75 percent of in-scope domestic production. The FD-ID system was introduced as a set of experimental indexes in January 2011. Nearly all new FD-ID goods, services, and construction indexes provide historical data back to either November 2009 or April 2010, while the indexes for goods that correspond with the historical SOP indexes go back to the 1970s or earlier.”

Headline and core final demand producer price indexes are in Table I-6B. The headline FD PPI SA increased 0.1 percent in Feb 2019 and increased 1.9 percent NSA in the 12 months ending in Feb 2019. The core FD PPI SA increased 0.1 percent in Feb 2019 and increased 2.5 percent in 12 months. Analysis of annual equivalent rates of change shows inflation waves similar to those worldwide. In the first wave, the absence of risk aversion from the sovereign risk crisis in Europe motivated the carry trade from zero interest rates into commodity futures that caused the average equivalent rate of 7.4 percent in the headline FD PPI in Jan-Apr 2011 and 4.6 percent in the core FD PPI. In the second wave, commodity futures prices collapsed in Jun 2011 with the return of risk aversion originating in the sovereign risk crisis of Europe. The annual equivalent rate of headline FD PPI inflation collapsed to 2.4 percent in May-Jun 2011 but the core annual equivalent inflation rate was at 2.4 percent. In the third wave, headline FD PPI inflation resuscitated with annual equivalent at 3.2 percent in Jul-Sep 2011 and core PPI inflation at 3.2 percent. Core FD PPI inflation was persistent throughout 2011, from annual equivalent at 4.6 percent in the first four months of 2011 to 2.6 percent in 12 months ending in Dec 2011. Unconventional monetary policy is based on the proposition that core rates reflect more fundamental inflation and are thus better predictors of the future. In practice, the relation of core and headline inflation is as difficult to predict as future inflation (see IIID Supply Shocks in http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html). In the fourth wave, risk aversion originating in the lack of resolution of the European debt crisis caused unwinding of carry trades with annual equivalent headline FD PPI inflation of minus 0.8 percent in Oct-Dec 2011 and minus 0.4 percent in the core annual equivalent. In the fifth wave from Jan to Mar 2012, annual equivalent inflation was 3.7 percent for the headline index and 3.7 percent for the core index excluding food and energy. In the sixth wave, annual equivalent inflation in Apr-May 2012 during renewed risk aversion was 1.2 percent for the headline FD PPI and 3.0 percent for the core. In the seventh wave, continuing risk aversion caused reversal of carry trades into commodity exposures with annual equivalent headline inflation of minus 2.4 percent in Jun-Jul 2012 while core FD PPI inflation was at annual equivalent minus 1.2 percent. In the eighth wave, relaxed risk aversion because of the announcement of the impaired bond buying program or Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) of the European Central Bank (http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html) induced carry trades that drove annual equivalent inflation of final demand producer prices of the United States at 6.2 percent in Aug-Sep 2012 and 1.2 percent in the core index. In the ninth wave, renewed risk aversion caused annual equivalent inflation of 0.8 percent in Oct 2011-Dec 2012 in the headline index and 2.8 percent in the core index. In the tenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 3.0 percent in the headline index in Jan-Feb 2013 and 0.6 percent in the core index. In the eleventh wave, annual equivalent price change was minus 1.2 percent in Mar-Apr 2013 and 2.4 percent for the core index. In the twelfth wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 1.8 percent in May-Aug 2013 and 1.6 percent in the core index. In the thirteenth wave, portfolio reallocations away from commodities and into equities reversed commodity carry trade with annual equivalent inflation of 1.6 percent in Sep-Nov 2013 in the headline FD PPI and 2.0 percent in the core. In the fourteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 2.4 percent annual equivalent for the headline index in Dec 2013-Feb 2014 and 1.6 percent for the core index. In the fifteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation increased to 2.4 percent in the headline FD PPI and 2.7 percent in the core in Mar-Jul 2014. In the sixteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 1.2 percent for the headline FD index and minus 0.6 percent for the core FD index in Aug-Sep 2014. In the seventeenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 2.4 percent for the headline FD and 4.9 percent for the core FD in Oct 2014. In the eighteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 3.0 percent for the headline FDI and 1.2 percent for the core in Nov-Dec 2014. In the nineteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 6.4 percent for the general index and minus 2.4 percent for the core in Jan-Feb 2015. In the twentieth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 2.4 percent for the general index in Mar 2015 and 0.0 percent for the core. In the twenty-first wave, final demand prices decreased at annual equivalent 2.4 percent for the headline index in Apr 2015 and increased at 2.4 percent for the core index. In the twenty-second wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 3.7 percent for the headline index in May-Jul 2015 and at 2.0 percent for the core index. In the twenty-third wave, the headline final demand index fell at 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Aug 2015 and the core changed at 0.0 percent annual equivalent. In the twenty-fourth wave, FD prices fell at annual equivalent 4.1 percent in Sep-Oct 2015. In the twenty-fifth wave, FD prices increased at 1.2 percent annual equivalent in Nov 2015. In the twenty-sixth wave, FD prices decreased at 1.2 percent annual equivalent in Dec 2015. In the twenty-seventh wave, FD prices increased at 3.7 percent annual equivalent in Jan 2016 and the core FD increased at 6.2 percent. In the twenty-eighth wave, FD prices fell at annual equivalent 1.8 percent in Feb-Mar 2016 while the core decreased at 0.6 percent. In the twenty-ninth wave, FD prices increased at 4.1 percent annual equivalent in Apr-Jun 2016 and core FD increased at 2.4 percent. In the thirtieth wave, final demand prices decreased at 1.2 percent in annual equivalent in Jul 2016 while the core decreased at 1.2 percent. In the thirty-first wave, final demand prices decreased at annual equivalent 2.4 percent in Aug 2016 and the core changed at 0.0 percent. In the thirty-second wave, final demand prices increased at annual equivalent 3.7 percent in Sep 2016 while core final demand increased at 2.4 percent. In the thirty-third wave, final demand prices increased at 3.7 percent and core final demand prices increased at 2.4 percent in Oct 2016. In the thirty-fourth wave, final demand producer prices increased at 3.0 percent annual equivalent in Nov-Dec 2016 while the core increased at 2.4 percent. In the thirty-fifth wave, final demand producer prices increased at 4.9 percent in Jan 2017 while core prices increased at 3.7 percent. In the thirty-sixth wave, final demand prices changed at 0.0 percent annual equivalent in Feb 2017 while the core index decreased at 1.2 percent. In the thirty-seventh wave, final demand prices increased at 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Mar 2017 while the core index increased at 2.4 percent. In the thirty-eighth wave, final demand prices increased at 4.9 percent in Apr 2017 while the core increased at 4.9 percent. In the thirty-ninth wave, final demand prices changed at annual equivalent 0.0 percent in May-Jun 2017 while core prices increased at 1.8 percent. In the fortieth wave, final demand prices increased at 1.2 percent annual equivalent in Jul 2017 while core prices increased at 1.2 percent. In the forty-first wave, final demand prices increased at 4.6 percent annual equivalent in Aug-Nov 2017 while core prices increased at 3.0 percent. In the forty-second wave, final demand prices changed at annual equivalent 0.0 percent in Dec 2017 while core prices changed at 0.0 percent. In the forty-third wave, final demand prices increased at annual equivalent 4.1 percent in Jan-Mar 2018 while core prices increased at 4.1 percent. In the forty-fourth wave, final demand prices increased at 3.2 percent in Apr-Jun 2018 while core prices increased at 3.2 percent. In the forty-fifth wave, final demand prices increased at 0.6 percent in Jul-Aug 2018 while core prices increased at 1.2 percent. In the forty-sixth wave, final demand prices increased at 5.5 percent annual equivalent in Sep-Oct 2018 while core prices increased at 4.9 percent. In the forty-seventh wave, final demand prices decreased at 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Nov 2018 while core prices increased at 1.2 percent. In the forty-eighth wave, final demand prices decreased at 1.2 percent annual equivalent in Dec 2018-Jan 2019 while core prices increased at 1.8 percent. In the forty-ninth wave, final demand prices increased at annual equivalent 1.2 percent in Feb 201 while core prices increased at 1.2 percent. It is almost impossible to forecast PPI inflation and its relation to CPI inflation. “Inflation surprise” by monetary policy could be proposed to climb along a downward sloping Phillips curve, resulting in higher inflation but lower unemployment (see Kydland and Prescott 1977, Barro and Gordon 1983 and past comments of this blog http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html). The architects of monetary policy would require superior inflation forecasting ability compared to forecasting naivety by everybody else. In practice, we are all naïve in forecasting inflation and other economic variables and events.

Table I-6B, US, Headline and Core Final Demand Producer Price Inflation Monthly SA and 12-Month NSA ∆%

Final Demand
SA
Month

Final Demand
NSA 12 months

Final Demand Core SA
Month

Final Demand Core NSA
12 months

Feb 2019

0.1

1.9

0.1

2.5

AE ∆% Feb

1.2

1.2

Jan

-0.1

2.0

0.3

2.6

Dec 2018

-0.1

2.5

0.0

2.7

AE ∆% Dec-Jan

-1.2

1.8

Nov

-0.2

2.5

0.1

2.7

AE ∆% Nov

-2.4

1.2

Oct

0.8

3.1

0.6

2.7

Sep

0.1

2.7

0.2

2.6

AE ∆% Sep-Oct

5.5

4.9

Aug

0.0

3.0

0.1

2.6

Jul

0.1

3.4

0.1

2.8

AE ∆% Jul-Aug

0.6

1.2

Jun

0.3

3.3

0.3

2.7

May

0.4

3.1

0.3

2.4

Apr

0.1

2.7

0.2

2.4

AE ∆% Apr-Jun

3.2

3.2

Mar

0.3

2.9

0.3

2.7

Feb

0.3

2.8

0.3

2.5

Jan

0.4

2.6

0.4

2.2

AE ∆% Jan-Mar

4.1

4.1

Dec 2017

0.0

2.5

0.0

2.2

AE ∆% Dec

0.0

0.0

Nov

0.4

3.0

0.2

2.3

Oct

0.4

2.8

0.4

2.4

Sep

0.3

2.6

0.1

2.2

Aug

0.4

2.4

0.3

2.2

AE ∆% Aug-Nov

4.6

3.0

Jul

0.1

2.0

0.1

1.9

AE ∆% Jul

1.2

1.2

Jun

0.0

1.9

0.0

1.8

May

0.0

2.3

0.3

2.0

AE ∆% May-Jun

0.0

1.8

Apr

0.4

2.5

0.4

1.9

AE ∆% Apr

4.9

4.9

Mar

0.2

2.2

0.2

1.5

AE ∆% Mar

2.4

2.4

Feb

0.0

2.0

-0.1

1.3

AE ∆% Feb

0.0

-1.2

Jan

0.4

1.7

0.3

1.4

AE ∆% Jan

4.9

3.7

Dec 2016

0.3

1.7

0.2

1.7

Nov

0.2

1.3

0.2

1.7

AE ∆% Nov-Dec

3.0

2.4

Oct

0.3

1.1

0.2

1.5

AE ∆% Oct

3.7

2.4

Sep

0.3

0.6

0.2

1.2

AE ∆% Sep

3.7

2.4

Aug

-0.2

0.0

0.0

1.0

AE ∆% Aug

-2.4

0.0

July

-0.1

0.0

-0.1

0.9

AE ∆% Jul

-1.2

-1.2

Jun

0.5

0.2

0.3

1.2

May

0.2

0.0

0.1

1.2

Apr

0.3

0.2

0.2

1.1

AE ∆% Apr-Jun

4.1

2.4

Mar

-0.1

-0.1

-0.1

1.1

Feb

-0.2

0.1

0.0

1.3

AE ∆% Mar-Feb

-1.8

-0.6

Jan

0.3

0.0

0.5

0.8

AE ∆% Jan

3.7

6.2

Dec 2015

-0.1

-1.1

0.2

0.2

AE ∆% Dec

-1.2

2.4

Nov

0.1

-1.3

0.1

0.3

AE ∆% Nov

1.2

1.2

Oct

-0.2

-1.4

-0.2

0.2

Sep

-0.5

-1.1

-0.1

0.7

AE ∆% Sep-Oct

-4.1

-1.8

Aug

-0.2

-1.0

0.0

0.6

AE ∆% Aug

-2.4

0.0

Jul

0.1

-0.7

0.2

0.8

Jun

0.3

-0.5

0.3

1.1

May

0.5

-0.8

0.0

0.7

AE ∆% May-Jul

3.7

2.0

Apr

-0.2

-1.1

0.2

1.0

AE ∆% Apr

-2.4

2.4

Mar

0.2

-0.9

0.0

0.8

AE ∆% Mar

2.4

0.0

Feb

-0.5

-0.5

-0.4

1.0

Jan

-0.6

0.0

0.0

1.7

AE ∆% Jan-Feb

-6.4

-2.4

Dec 2014

-0.3

0.9

0.2

2.0

Nov

-0.2

1.3

0.0

1.7

AE ∆% Nov-Dec

-3.0

1.2

Oct

0.2

1.5

0.4

1.9

AE ∆% Oct

2.4

4.9

Sep

-0.2

1.6

-0.1

1.6

Aug

0.0

1.9

0.0

1.9

AE ∆% Aug-Sep

-1.2

-0.6

Jul

0.4

1.9

0.5

1.9

Jun

-0.1

1.8

0.0

1.6

May

0.2

2.1

0.3

2.1

Apr

0.1

1.8

0.0

1.5

Mar

0.4

1.6

0.3

1.6

AE ∆% Mar-Jul

2.4

2.7

Feb

0.2

1.2

0.2

1.6

Jan

0.3

1.3

0.2

1.4

Dec 2013

0.1

1.2

0.0

1.2

AE ∆% Dec-Feb

2.4

1.6

Nov

0.2

1.1

0.2

1.4

Oct

0.2

1.3

0.2

1.7

Sep

0.0

1.1

0.1

1.6

AE ∆% Sep-Nov

1.6

2.0

Aug

0.1

1.7

0.0

1.8

Jul

0.2

2.0

0.3

1.7

Jun

0.4

1.7

0.4

1.3

May

-0.1

0.9

-0.3

0.9

AE ∆%  May-Aug

1.8

1.6

Apr

-0.2

0.9

0.2

1.3

Mar

0.0

1.3

0.2

1.5

AE ∆%  Mar-Apr

-1.2

2.4

Feb

0.2

1.6

0.0

1.4

Jan

0.3

1.6

0.1

1.7

AE ∆%  Jan-Feb

3.0

0.6

Dec 2012

0.0

1.9

0.1

2.0

Nov

0.1

1.7

0.5

1.8

Oct

0.1

1.9

0.1

1.6

AE ∆%  Oct-Dec

0.8

2.8

Sep

0.7

1.5

0.3

1.4

Aug

0.3

1.2

-0.1

1.2

AE ∆% Aug-Sep

6.2

1.2

Jul

-0.1

1.0

-0.1

1.7

Jun

-0.3

1.3

-0.1

1.9

AE ∆% Jun-Jul

-2.4

-1.2

May

-0.1

1.6

0.2

2.2

Apr

0.3

2.0

0.3

2.1

AE ∆% Apr-May

1.2

3.0

Mar

0.2

2.4

0.2

2.3

Feb

0.3

2.8

0.3

2.6

Jan

0.4

3.1

0.4

2.5

AE ∆% Jan-Mar

3.7

3.7

Dec 2011

-0.1

3.2

0.0

2.6

Nov

0.3

3.7

0.2

2.7

Oct

-0.4

3.7

-0.3

2.7

AE ∆% Oct-Dec

-0.8

-0.4

Sep

0.4

4.5

0.2

2.9

Aug

0.2

4.4

0.4

3.0

Jul

0.2

4.5

0.2

2.7

AE ∆% Jul-Sep

3.2

3.2

Jun

0.1

4.3

0.2

2.6

May

0.3

4.2

0.2

2.3

AE ∆%  May-Jun

2.4

2.4

Apr

0.5

4.2

0.3

2.5

Mar

0.7

4.0

0.5

NA

Feb

0.6

3.3

0.3

NA

Jan

0.6

2.4

0.4

NA

AE ∆%  Jan-Apr

7.4

4.6

Dec 2010

0.3

2.8

0.1

NA

Nov

0.3

2.6

0.1

NA

Oct

0.4

NA

0.1

NA

Sep

0.3

NA

0.2

NA

Aug

0.2

NA

0.0

NA

Jul

0.2

NA

0.2

NA

Jun

-0.2

NA

-0.1

NA

May

0.2

NA

0.3

NA

Apr

0.3

NA

NA

NA

Mar

0.1

NA

NA

NA

Feb

-0.2

NA

NA

NA

Jan

0.9

NA

NA

NA

Dec 2009

0.1

Note: Core: excluding food and energy; AE: annual equivalent

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/ppi/data.htm

Chart I-24B provides the FD PPI NSA from 2009 to 2019. There is persistent inflation with periodic declines in inflation waves similar to those worldwide.

Chart I-24B, US, Final Demand Producer Price Index, NSA, 2009-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Twelve-month percentage changes of the FD PPI from 2010 to 2019 are in Chart I-25B. There are fluctuations in the rates with evident trend of decline to more subdued inflation. Reallocations of investment portfolios of risk financial assets from commodities to stocks explain much lower FD PPI inflation.

Chart I-25B, US, Final Demand Producer Price Index, 12-Month Percentage Change NSA, 2010-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi

The core FD PPI NSA is in Chart I-26B. The behavior is similar to the headline index but with less fluctuation.

Chart I-26B, US, Final Demand Producer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 2009-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Percentage changes in 12 months of the core FD PPI are in Chart I-27B. There are fluctuations in 12-month percentage changes but with evident declining trend to more moderate inflation.

Chart I-27B, US, Final Demand Producer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2010-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

The energy FD PPI NSA is in Chart I-28B. The index increased during the reposition of carry trades after the discovery of lack of toxic assets in banks that caused flight away from risk financial assets into government obligations of the US (Cochrane and Zingales 2009). Alternating risk aversion and appetite with reallocations among classes of risk financial assets explain the behavior of the index after late 2010.

Chart I-28B, US, Final Demand Energy Producer Price Index, NSA, 2009-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Twelve-month percentage changes of the FD energy PPI are in Chart I-29B. Rates moderated from late 2010 to the present. There are multiple negative rates. Investors create and reverse carry trades from zero interest rates to derivatives of commodities in accordance with relative risk evaluations of classes of risk financial assets.

Chart I-29B, US, Final Demand Energy Producer Price Index, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2010-2019

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Table I-7 provides 12-month percentage changes of the CPI all items, CPI core and CPI housing from 2001 to 2019. There is no evidence in these data supporting symmetric inflation targets that would only induce greater instability in inflation, interest rates and financial markets. Unconventional monetary policy drives wide swings in allocations of positions into risk financial assets that generate instability instead of intended pursuit of prosperity without inflation. There is insufficient knowledge and imperfect tools to maintain the gap of actual relative to potential output constantly at zero while restraining inflation in an open interval (1.99, 2.0). Symmetric targets appear to have been abandoned in a favor of a self-imposed single jobs mandate of easing

monetary policy even with the economy growing at or close to potential output.

Table I-7, CPI All Items, CPI Core and CPI Housing, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA 2001-2019

Feb

CPI All Items

CPI Core ex Food and Energy

CPI Housing

2019

1.5

2.1

2.9

2018

2.2

1.8

2.8

2017

2.7

2.2

3.1

2016

1.0

2.3

2.1

2015

0.0

1.7

2.3

2014

1.1

1.6

2.4

2013

2.0

2.0

1.8

2012

2.9

2.2

1.9

2011

2.1

1.1

0.4

2010

2.1

1.3

-0.5

2009

0.2

1.8

2.2

2008

4.0

2.3

3.0

2007

2.4

2.7

3.0

2006

3.6

2.1

4.3

2005

3.0

2.4

3.0

2004

1.7

1.2

2.2

2003

3.0

1.7

2.6

2002

1.1

2.6

2.0

2001

3.5

2.7

4.9

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

II I United States Housing Collapse. Data and other information continue to provide depressed conditions in the US housing market in a longer perspective, with recent improvement at the margin. Table IIB-1 shows sales of new houses in the US at seasonally adjusted annual equivalent rate (SAAR). The US Census Bureau revised all seasonally-adjusted new house sales from 2013 to 2018 with the report for Apr 2018 on May 23, 2018 (https://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/pdf/newressales.pdf). House sales fell in 40 of 97 months from Jan 2011 to Dec 2018 with monthly declines of 5 in 2011, 4 in 2012, 5 in 2013, 6 in 2014, 3 in 2015, 6 in 2016, 4 in 2017, 6 in 2018 and 1 in 2019. In Jan-Apr 2012, house sales increased at the annual equivalent rate of 11.8 percent and at 22.3 percent in May-Sep 2012. There was significant strength in Sep-Dec 2011 with annual equivalent rate of 48.4 percent. Sales of new houses fell at 7.0 percent in Oct 2012 with increase of 9.5 percent in Nov 2012. Sales of new houses rebounded 11.8 percent in Jan 2013 with annual equivalent rate of 55.7 percent from Oct 2012 to Jan 2013 because of the increase at 11.8 percent in Jan 2013. New house sales decreased at annual equivalent 3.0 percent in Feb-Mar 2013. New house sales weakened, decreasing at 3.1 percent in annual equivalent from Apr to Dec 2013 with significant volatility illustrated by decline of 20.2 percent in Jul 2013 and increase of 10.2 percent in Oct 2013. New house sales fell 2.9 percent in Dec 2013. New house sales increased 2.8 percent in Jan 2014 and fell 3.6 percent in Feb 2014, decreasing 4.7 percent in Mar 2014. New house sales decreased 2.2 percent in Apr 2014 and increased 13.0 percent in May 2014. New house sales fell 8.0 percent in Jun 2014 and decreased 3.4 percent in Jul 2014. New house sales jumped 13.2 percent in Aug 2014 and increased 2.4 percent in Sep 2014. New House sales increased 1.3 percent in Oct 2014 and fell 5.9 percent in Nov 2014. House sales fell at the annual equivalent rate of 9.2 percent in Sep-Nov 2014. New house sales increased 9.9 percent in Dec 2014 and increased 7.0 percent in Jan 2015. Sales of new houses increased 6.5 percent in Feb

2015 and fell 12.8 percent in Mar 2015. House sales increased 3.7 percent in Apr 2015. The annual equivalent rate in Dec 2014-Apr 2015 was 34.8 percent. New house sales increased 0.2 percent in May 2015 and fell 6.0 percent in Jun 2015, increasing 5.1 percent in Jul 2015. New house sales fell at annual equivalent 4.0 percent in May-Jul 2015. New house sales increased 3.4 percent in Aug 2015 and fell 11.5 percent in Sep 2015. New house sales decreased at annual equivalent 41.3 percent in Aug-Sep 2015. New house sales increased 4.4 percent in Oct 2015 and increased 5.9 percent in Nov 2015, increasing 6.0 percent in Dec 2015. New house sales increased at the annual equivalent rate of 88.6 percent in Oct-Dec 2015. New house sales decreased 2.8 percent in Jan 2016 at the annual equivalent rate of minus 28.9 percent. New house sales increased 1.5 percent in Feb 2016 and increased 2.1 percent in Mar 2016. New house sales jumped at 5.2 percent in Apr 2016. New house sales increased at the annual equivalent rate of 41.3 percent in Feb-Apr 2016. New house sales decreased 1.4 percent in May 2016 and increased 0.4 percent in Jun 2016. New house sales jumped 12.9 percent in Jul 2016. New house sales increased at the annual equivalent rate of 56.0 percent in May-Jul 2016. New house sales fell 9.5 percent in Aug 2016 and decreased 1.0 percent in Sep 2016, increasing 1.2 percent in Oct 2016. New house sales fell at the annual equivalent rate of minus 32.4 percent in Aug-Oct 2016. New house sales decreased at 0.9 percent in Nov 2016 and fell at 3.9 percent in Dec 2016. New house sales fell at 25.4 percent annual equivalent in Nov-Dec 2016. New house sales increased at 9.2 percent in Jan 2017 and increased at 3.7 percent in Feb 2017. New house sales increased at 100.9 percent in Jan-Feb 2017. New house sales increased at 4.0 percent in Mar 2017 and fell at 7.8 percent in Apr 2017. New house sales decreased at annual equivalent 22.3 percent in Mar-Apr 2017. New house sales increased at 1.9 percent in May 2017 and increased at 2.0 percent in Jun 2017. New house sales increased at annual equivalent 26.1 percent in May-Jun 2017. New house sales decreased at 9.7 percent in Jul 2017 and increased at 0.4 percent in Aug 2017, increasing at 14.2 percent in Sep 2017. New house sales increased at annual equivalent 14.9 percent in Jul-Sep 2017. New house sales decreased at 3.0 percent in Oct 2017. New house sales increased at 15.2 percent in Nov 2017. New house sales increased at annual equivalent 94.7 percent in Oct-Nov 2017. New house sales decreased at 10.7 percent in Dec 2017 and decreased at 0.5 percent in Jan 2018. New house sales decreased at annual equivalent 50.8 percent in Dec 2017-Jan 2018. New house sales increased at 4.7 percent in Feb 2018, increasing at 1.4 percent in Mar 2018. New house sales increased at 43.2 percent in Feb-Mar 2018. New house sales decreased at 5.8 percent in Apr 2018 and increased at 3.2 percent in May 2018. New House sales decreased at annual equivalent 15.6 percent in Apr-May 2018. New house sales decreased at 6.3 percent in Jun 2018 and decreased at 1.0 percent in Jul 2018. New House sales decreased at annual equivalent 36.3 percent in Jun-Jul 2018. New house sales decreased at 0.8 percent in Aug 2018 and increased at 1.3 percent in Sep 2018. New house sales increased at annual equivalent 3.0 percent in Aug-Sep 2018. New house sales fell at 9.4 percent in Oct 2018 and increased at 13.8 percent in Nov 2018. New house sales increased at annual equivalent 20.1 percent in Oct-Nov 2018. New house sales increased at 3.8 percent in Dec 2018 and decreased at 6.9 percent in Jan 2019. New house sales decreased at annual equivalent 18.6 percent in Dec 2018-Jan 2019. There are wide monthly oscillations. Robbie Whelan and Conor Dougherty, writing on “Builders fuel home sale rise,” on Feb 26, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324338604578327982067761860.html), analyze how builders have provided financial assistance to home buyers, including those short of cash and with weaker credit background, explaining the rise in new home sales and the highest gap between prices of new and existing houses. The 30-year conventional mortgage rate increased from 3.40 on Apr 25, 2013 to 4.58 percent on Aug 22, 2013 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm), which could also be a factor in recent weakness with improvement after the rate fell to 4.26 in Nov 2013. The conventional mortgage rate rose to 4.48 percent on Dec 26, 2013 and fell to 4.32 percent on Jan 30, 2014. The conventional mortgage rate increased to 4.37 percent on Feb 26, 2014 and 4.40 percent on Mar 27, 2014. The conventional mortgage rate fell to 4.14 percent on Apr 22, 2014, stabilizing at 4.14 on Jun 26, 2014. The conventional mortgage rate stood at 3.93 percent on Aug 20, 2015 and at 3.91 percent on Sep 17, 2015. The conventional mortgage rate was at 3.79 percent on Oct 22, 2015. The conventional mortgage rate was 3.97 percent on Nov 20, 2015. The conventional mortgage rate was 3.97 percent on Dec 18, 2015, and 3.92 percent on Jan 14, 2016. The conventional mortgage rate was 3.65 percent on Feb 19, 2016. The commercial mortgage rate was 3.73 percent on Mar 17, 2016 and 3.59 percent on Apr 21, 2016. The conventional mortgage rate was 3.58 on May 19, 2016. The conventional mortgage rate was 3.54 percent on Jun 19, 2016 and 3.45 percent on Jul 21, 2016. The conventional mortgage rate was 3.43 percent on Aug 18, 2016 and 3.48 percent on Sep 22, 2016. The conventional mortgage rate was 3.94 on Nov 17, 2016 and 4.30 percent on Dec 22. The conventional mortgage rate was 4.19 percent on Jan 26, 2017 and 4.15 percent on Feb 17, 2017. The conventional mortgage rate was 4.1 percent on Mar 16, 2017. The conventional mortgage rate was 3.97 percent on Apr 20, 2017. The conventional mortgage rate was 4.05 percent on May 18, 2017. The conventional mortgage rate was 3.90 percent on Jun 22, 2017. The conventional mortgage rate was 3.96 percent on Jul 20, 2017. The conventional mortgage rate was 3.90 percent on Aug 18, 2017. The conventional mortgage rate was 3.83 percent on Sep 21, 2017. The conventional mortgage rate was 3.88 percent on Oct 20, 2017. The conventional mortgage rate was 3.92 percent on Nov 22, 2017 and 3.94 on Dec 21, 2017. The conventional mortgage rate was 4.04 percent on Jan 18, 2018. The conventional mortgage rate was 4.40 percent on Feb 22, 2018. The conventional rate was 4.43 percent on Mar 1, 2018. The conventional mortgage rate was 4.45 percent on Mar 22, 2018. The conventional mortgage rate was 4.47 on Apr 19, 2018. The conventional mortgage rate was 4.87 percent in May 31, 2018. The conventional mortgage rate was 4.57 percent on Jun 21, 2018. The conventional mortgage rate was 4.52 percent on Jul 19, 2018. The conventional mortgage rate was 4.53 percent on Aug 16, 2018. The conventional mortgage rate was 4.65 percent on Sep 20, 2018. The conventional mortgage rate was 4.85 percent on Oct 18, 2018. The conventional mortgage rate was 4.81 percent on Nov 21, 2018. The conventional mortgage rate was 4.35 percent in Feb 2019. The conventional mortgage rate was 4.41 percent on Mar 7, 2019. The conventional mortgage rate measured in a survey by Freddie Mac (http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/ http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/abtpmms.htm) is the “interest rate a lender would charge to lend mortgage money to a qualified borrower.

Table IIB-1, US, Sales of New Houses at Seasonally-Adjusted (SA) Annual Equivalent Rate, Thousands and % 

SA Annual Rate
Thousands

∆%

Jan 2019

607

-6.9

Dec 2018

652

3.8

AE ∆% Dec-Jan

-18.6

Nov

628

13.8

Oct

552

-9.4

AE ∆% Oct-Nov

20.1

Sep

609

1.3

Aug

601

-0.8

AE ∆% Aug-Sep

3.0

Jul

606

-1.0

Jun

612

-6.3

AE ∆% Jun-Jul

-36.3

May

653

3.2

Apr

633

-5.8

AE ∆% Apr-May

-15.6

Mar

672

1.4

Feb

663

4.7

AE ∆% Feb-Mar

43.2

Jan

633

-0.5

Dec 2017

636

-10.7

AE ∆% Dec-Jan

-50.8

Nov

712

15.2

Oct

618

-3.0

AE ∆% Oct-Nov

94.7

Sep

637

14.2

Aug

558

0.4

Jul

556

-9.7

AE ∆% Jul-Sep

14.9

Jun

616

2.0

May

604

1.9

AE ∆% May -Jun

26.1

Apr

593

-7.8

Mar

643

4.0

AE ∆% Mar-Apr

-22.3

Feb

618

3.7

Jan

596

9.2

AE ∆% Jan-Feb

100.9

Dec 2016

546

-3.9

Nov

568

-0.9

AE ∆% Nov-Dec

-25.4

Oct

573

1.2

Sep

566

-1.0

Aug

572

-9.5

AE ∆% Aug-Oct

-32.4

Jul

632

12.9

Jun

560

0.4

May

558

-1.4

AE ∆% May-Jul

56.0

Apr

566

5.2

Mar

538

2.1

Feb

527

1.5

AE ∆% Feb-Apr

41.3

Jan

519

-2.8

AE ∆% Jan

-28.9

Dec 2015

534

6.0

Nov

504

5.9

Oct

476

4.4

AE ∆% Oct-Dec

88.6

Sep

456

-11.5

Aug

515

3.4

AE ∆% Aug-Sep

-41.3

Jul

498

5.1

Jun

474

-6.0

May

504

0.2

AE ∆% May-Jul

-4.0

Apr

503

3.7

Mar

485

-12.8

Feb

556

6.5

Jan

522

7.0

Dec 2014

488

9.9

AE ∆% Dec-Apr

34.8

Nov

444

-5.9

Oct

472

1.3

Sep

466

2.4

AE ∆% Sep-Nov

-9.2

Aug

455

13.2

Jul

402

-3.4

Jun

416

-8.0

May

452

13.0

Apr

400

-2.2

Mar

409

-4.7

Feb

429

-3.6

Jan

445

2.8

AE ∆% Jan-Aug

7.6

Dec 2013

433

-2.9

Nov

446

0.5

Oct

444

10.2

Sep

403

5.8

Aug

381

1.6

Jul

375

-20.2

Jun

470

9.8

May

428

-2.9

Apr

441

-0.7

AE ∆% Apr-Dec

-3.1

Mar

444

-0.7

Feb

447

0.2

AE ∆% Feb-Mar

-3.0

Jan

446

11.8

Dec 2012

399

1.8

Nov

392

9.5

Oct

358

-7.0

AE ∆% Oct-Jan

55.7

Sep

385

2.7

Aug

375

1.6

Jul

369

2.5

Jun

360

-2.7

May

370

4.5

AE ∆% May-Sep

22.3

Apr

354

0.0

Mar

354

-3.3

Feb

366

9.3

Jan

335

-1.8

AE ∆% Jan-Apr

11.8

Dec 2011

341

4.0

Nov

328

3.8

Oct

316

3.9

Sep

304

1.7

AE ∆% Sep-Dec

48.4

Aug

299

1.0

Jul

296

-1.7

Jun

301

-1.3

May

305

-1.6

AE ∆% May-Aug

-10.3

Apr

310

3.3

Mar

300

11.1

Feb

270

-12.1

Jan

307

-5.8

AE ∆% Jan-Apr

-14.2

Dec 2010

326

13.6

AE: Annual Equivalent

Source: US Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/

There is additional information of the report of new house sales in Table IIB-2. The stock of unsold houses fell from rates of 6 to 8 percent of sales in 2011 to 4 to 5 percent in 2013 and 6.6 percent in Jan 2018. Robbie Whelan and Conor Dougherty, writing on “Builders fuel home sale rise,” on Feb 26, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324338604578327982067761860.html), find that inventories of houses have declined as investors acquire distressed houses of higher quality. Median and average house prices oscillate. In Jan 2019, median prices of new houses sold not seasonally adjusted (NSA) decreased 0.6 percent after increasing 4.1 percent in

Dec 2018. Average prices decreased 0.2 percent in Jan 2019 and increased 2.7 percent in Dec 2018. Between Dec 2010 and Jan 2019, median prices increased 31.5 percent, with increases of 6.0 percent in Feb 2016, 4.9 percent in Nov 2015, 2.2 percent in Sep 2015, 13.6 percent in Oct 2014, 4.0 percent in Aug 2014, 4.0 percent in May 2014 and 5.2 percent in Mar 2014. Average prices increased 27.9 percent between Dec 2010 and Jan 2019, with increases of 5.1 percent in Mar 2016, 4.0 percent in Sep 2015, 4.4 percent in Jul 2015 and 18.3 percent in Oct 2014. Between Dec 2010 and Dec 2012, median prices increased 7.1 percent and average prices increased 2.6 percent. Price increases concentrated in 2012 with increase of median prices of 18.2 percent from Dec 2011 to Dec 2012 and of average prices of 13.8 percent. Median prices increased 16.7 percent from Dec 2012 to Dec 2014, with increase of 13.6 percent in Oct 2014, while average prices increased 24.7 percent, with increase of 18.3 percent in Oct 2014. Median prices decreased 1.5 percent from Dec 2014 to Dec 2015 while average prices fell 5.5 percent. Median prices increased 10.1 percent from Dec 2015 to Dec 2016 while average prices increased 8.5 percent. Median prices increased 5.0 percent from Dec 2016 to Dec 2017 while average prices increased 5.3 percent. Median prices decreased 7.0 percent from Dec 2017 to Dec 2018 while average prices decreased 7.2 percent. Median prices decreased 3.8 percent from Jan 2018 to Jan 2019 while average prices decreased 1.2 percent. Robbie Whelan, writing on “New homes hit record as builders cap supply,” on May 24, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323475304578500973445311276.html?mod=WSJ_economy_LeftTopHighlights), finds that homebuilders are continuing to restrict the number of new homes for sale. Restriction of available new homes for sale increases prices paid by buyers.

Table IIB-2, US, New House Stocks and Median and Average New Homes Sales Price

Unsold*
Stocks in Equiv.
Months
of Sales
SA %

Median
New House Sales Price USD
NSA

Month
∆%

Average New House Sales Price USD
NSA

Month
∆%

Jan 2019

6.6

317,200

-0.6

373,100

-0.2

Dec 2018

6.3

319,100

4.1

374,000

2.7

Nov

6.3

306,500

-6.6

364,000

-7.8

Oct

7.2

328,300

0.0

394,900

2.2

Sep

6.3

328,300

2.1

386,400

1.4

Aug

6.3

321,400

-1.9

380,900

-2.9

Jul

6.2

327,500

5.5

392,300

6.0

Jun

6.0

310,500

-2.0

370,100

-0.7

May

5.5

316,700

0.7

372,600

-3.2

Apr

5.7

314,400

-6.3

385,100

4.3

Mar

5.3

335,400

2.5

369,200

-1.2

Feb

5.4

327,200

-0.7

373,600

-1.1

Jan

5.6

329,600

-4.0

377,800

-6.2

Dec 2017

5.5

343,300

0.0

402,900

3.7

Nov

4.9

343,400

7.5

388,500

-1.4

Oct

5.6

319,500

-3.6

394,000

3.9

Sep

5.3

331,500

5.5

379,300

2.7

Aug

6.0

314,200

-2.7

369,200

-0.9

Jul

6.0

322,900

2.4

372,400

0.5

Jun

5.3

315,200

-2.6

370,600

-2.1

May

5.4

323,600

4.0

378,400

3.4

Apr

5.4

311,100

-3.3

365,800

-4.8

Mar

5.0

321,700

8.0

384,400

3.8

Feb

5.1

298,000

-5.5

370,500

3.6

Jan

5.3

315,200

-3.6

357,700

-6.5

Dec 2016

5.6

327,000

3.8

382,500

5.3

Nov

5.3

315,000

4.0

363,400

3.2

Oct

5.2

302,800

-3.8

352,200

-3.8

Sep

5.2

314,800

5.3

366,100

3.1

Aug

5.0

298,900

0.5

355,100

0.6

Jul

4.5

297,400

-4.4

353,000

-1.3

Jun

5.2

311,200

5.4

357,800

2.3

May

5.2

295,200

-7.3

349,700

-5.3

Apr

5.1

318,300

5.0

369,300

2.9

Mar

5.4

303,200

-0.9

359,000

5.1

Feb

5.4

305,800

6.0

341,700

-5.4

Jan

5.5

288,400

-2.9

361,200

2.5

Dec 2015

5.2

297,100

-5.0

352,500

-5.5

Nov

5.5

312,600

4.9

373,200

1.2

Oct

5.7

298,000

-0.5

368,900

3.3

Sep

5.9

299,500

2.2

357,200

4.0

Aug

5.1

293,000

0.2

343,300

0.6

Jul

5.2

292,300

2.5

341,200

4.4

Jun

5.5

285,100

-0.8

326,900

-2.8

May

5.0

287,500

-2.4

336,200

-1.2

Apr

4.9

294,500

2.8

340,400

-2.5

Mar

5.1

286,600

0.0

349,300

0.9

Feb

4.4

286,600

-1.8

346,300

-0.6

Jan

4.8

292,000

-3.2

348,300

-6.7

Dec 2014

5.2

301,500

1.1

373,200

7.0

Nov

5.7

298,300

0.4

348,900

-7.6

Oct

5.3

297,000

13.6

377,500

18.3

Sep

5.4

261,500

-10.4

319,100

-10.4

Aug

5.5

291,700

4.0

356,200

3.2

Jul

6.1

280,400

-2.3

345,200

2.1

Jun

5.7

287,000

0.5

338,100

4.5

May

5.2

285,600

4.0

323,500

-0.5

Apr

5.7

274,500

-2.8

325,100

-1.9

Mar

5.6

282,300

5.2

331,500

1.7

Feb

5.2

268,400

-0.5

325,900

-3.4

Jan

5.1

269,800

-2.1

337,300

5.0

Dec 2013

5.2

275,500

-0.6

321,200

-4.3

Nov

5.0

277,100

4.8

335,600

0.0

Oct

4.9

264,300

-2.0

335,700

4.4

Sep

5.4

269,800

5.7

321,400

3.4

Aug

5.5

255,300

-2.6

310,800

-5.8

Jul

5.5

262,200

0.9

329,900

7.8

Jun

4.1

259,800

-1.5

306,100

-2.5

May

4.6

263,700

-5.6

314,000

-6.8

Apr

4.4

279,300

8.5

337,000

12.3

Mar

4.2

257,500

-2.9

300,200

-3.9

Feb

4.1

265,100

5.4

312,500

1.8

Jan

4.0

251,500

-2.6

306,900

2.6

Dec 2012

4.5

258,300

5.4

299,200

2.9

Nov

4.6

245,000

-0.9

290,700

1.9

Oct

4.9

247,200

-2.9

285,400

-4.1

Sep

4.5

254,600

0.6

297,700

-2.6

Aug

4.6

253,200

6.7

305,500

8.2

Jul

4.6

237,400

2.1

282,300

3.9

Jun

4.8

232,600

-2.8

271,800

-3.2

May

4.7

239,200

1.2

280,900

-2.4

Apr

4.9

236,400

-1.4

287,900

1.5

Mar

4.9

239,800

0.0

283,600

3.5

Feb

4.8

239,900

8.2

274,000

3.1

Jan

5.3

221,700

1.4

265,700

1.1

Dec 2011

5.3

218,600

2.0

262,900

5.2

Nov

5.7

214,300

-4.7

250,000

-3.2

Oct

6.0

224,800

3.6

258,300

1.1

Sep

6.3

217,000

-1.2

255,400

-1.5

Aug

6.5

219,600

-4.5

259,300

-4.1

Jul

6.7

229,900

-4.3

270,300

-1.0

Jun

6.6

240,200

8.2

273,100

4.0

May

6.6

222,000

-1.2

262,700

-2.3

Apr

6.7

224,700

1.9

268,900

3.1

Mar

7.2

220,500

0.2

260,800

-0.8

Feb

8.1

220,100

-8.3

262,800

-4.7

Jan

7.3

240,100

-0.5

275,700

-5.5

Dec 2010

7.0

241,200

9.8

291,700

3.5

*Percent of new houses for sale relative to houses sold

Source: US Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/

The depressed level of residential construction and new house sales in the US is evident in Table IIB-3 providing new house sales not seasonally adjusted in Jan of various years. New house sales decreased 6.3 percent from Jan 2018 to Jan 2019. New house sales changed 0.0 percent from Jan 2017 to Jan 2019. Sales of new houses are higher in Jan 2019 relative to Jan 2016 with increase of 15.4 percent. Sales of new houses are higher in Jan 2019 relative to Jan 2015 with increase of 15.4 percent. Sales of new houses in Jan 2019 are substantially lower than in many years between 1971 and 2019 except for the years from 2008 to 2018. There are several other increases of 36.4 percent relative to 2014, 40.6 percent relative to Jan 2013, 95.7 percent relative to Jan 2012, 114.3 percent relative to Jan 2011, 87.5 percent relative to Jan 2010, 87.5 percent relative to Jan 2010 and 87.5 percent relative to Jan 2009. New house sales in Jan 2019 are 2.3 percent higher than in Jan 2008. Sales of new houses in Jan 2018 are lower by 31.8 percent relative to Jan 2007, 49.4 percent relative to 2006, 51.1 percent relative to 2005 and 49.4 percent relative to 2004. The housing boom peaked in 2005 and 2006 when increases in fed funds rates to 5.25 percent in Jun 2006 from 1.0 percent in Jun 2004 affected subprime mortgages that were programmed for refinancing in two or three years on the expectation that price increases forever would raise home equity. Higher home equity would permit refinancing under feasible mortgages incorporating full payment of principal and interest (Gorton 2009EFM; see other references in http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/causes-of-2007-creditdollar-crisis.html). Sales of new houses in Jan 2019 relative to the same period in 2003 fell 40.8 percent and 31.8 percent relative to the same period in 2002. Similar percentage declines are also for 2019 relative to years from 2000 to 2004. Sales of new houses in Jan 2019 decreased 4.3 per cent relative to the same period in 1995. The population of the US was 179.3 million in 1960 and 281.4 million in 2000 (Hobbs and Stoops 2002, 16). Detailed historical census reports are available from the US Census Bureau at (http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html). The estimate of the US population is 418.8 million in 2015. The US population increased by 133.6 percent from 1960 to 2015. The final row of Table IIB-3 reveals catastrophic data: sales of new houses in Jan 2019 of 45 thousand units are lower by 11.8 percent relative to 51 thousand units of houses sold in Jan 1972, which is the ninth year when data become available in 1963. The civilian noninstitutional population increased from 122.416 million in 1963 to 257.791 million in 2018, or 110.6 percent (http://www.bls.gov/data/). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines the civilian noninstitutional population (http://www.bls.gov/lau/rdscnp16.htm#cnp): “The civilian noninstitutional population consists of persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities and homes for the aged) and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.”

Table IIB-3, US, Sales of New Houses Not Seasonally Adjusted, Thousands and %

Jan 2019

45

Jan 2018

48

∆% Jan 2019/Jan 2018

-6.3

Jan 2017

45

Jan 2019/Jan 2017

0.0

Jan 2016

39

∆% Jan 2019/Jan 2016

15.4

Jan 2015

39

∆% Jan 2019/Jan 2015

15.4

Jan 2014

33

∆% Jan 2019/Jan 2014

36.4

Jan 2013

32

∆% Jan 2019/Jan 2013

40.6

Jan 2012

23

∆% Jan 2019/Jan 2012

95.7

Jan 2011

21

∆% Jan 2019/ 
Jan 2011

114.3

Jan 2010

24

∆% Jan 2019/ 
Jan 2010

87.5

Jan 2009

24

∆% Jan 2019/ 
Jan 2009

87.5

Jan 2008

44

∆% Jan 2019/
Jan 2008

2.3

Jan 2007

66

∆% Jan 2019/Jan 2007

-31.8

Jan 2006

89

∆% Jan 2019/Jan 2006

-49.4

Jan 2005

92

∆% Jan 2019/Jan 2005

-51.1

Jan 2004

89

∆% Jan 2019/
Jan 2004

-49.4

Jan 2003

76

∆% Jan 2019/
Jan 2003

-40.8

Jan 2002

66

∆% Jan 2019/
Jan 2002

-31.8

Jan 2001

72

∆% Jan 2019/
Jan 2001

-37.5

Jan 2000

67

∆% Jan 2019/Jan 2000

-32.8

Jan 1995

47

∆% Jan 2019/
Jan 1995

-4.3

Jan 1972

51

∆% Jan 2019/
Jan 1972

-11.8

*Computed using unrounded data

Source: US Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/

The revised level of 306 thousand new houses sold in 2011 is the lowest since 560 thousand in 1963 in the 53 years of available data while the level of 368 thousand in 2012 is only higher than 323 thousand in 2010. The level of sales of new houses of 437 thousand in 2014 is the lowest from 1963 to 2009 with exception of 412 thousand in 1982 and 436 thousand in 1981. The population of the US increased 129.4 million from 179.3 million in 1960 to 308.7 million in 2010, or 72.2 percent. The estimate of the US population is 418.8 million in 2015. The US population increased 133.6 percent from 1960 to 2015. The civilian noninstitutional population increased from 122.416 million in 1963 to 257.791 million in 2018, or 110.6 percent (http://www.bls.gov/data/). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines the civilian noninstitutional population (http://www.bls.gov/lau/rdscnp16.htm#cnp): “The civilian noninstitutional population consists of persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities and homes for the aged) and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.”

The civilian noninstitutional population is the universe of the labor force. In fact, there is no year from 1963 to 2013 in Table IIA-4 with sales of new houses below 400 thousand except for the immediately preceding years of 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Table IIB-4, US, New Houses Sold, NSA Thousands

Period

Sold During Period

1963

560

1964

565

1965

575

1966

461

1967

487

1968

490

1969

448

1970

485

1971

656

1972

718

1973

634

1974

519

1975

549

1976

646

1977

819

1978

817

1979

709

1980

545

1981

436

1982

412

1983

623

1984

639

1985

688

1986

750

1987

671

1988

676

1989

650

1990

534

1991

509

1992

610

1993

666

1994

670

1995

667

1996

757

1997

804

1998

886

1999

880

2000

877

2001

908

2002

973

2003

1,086

2004

1,203

2005

1,283

2006

1,051

2007

776

2008

485

2009

375

2010

323

2011

306

2012

368

2013

429

2014

437

2015

501

2016

561

2017

613

2018

627

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/

Chart IIB-1 of the US Bureau of the Census shows the sharp decline of sales of new houses in the US. Sales rose temporarily until about mid 2010 but then declined to a lower plateau followed by increase, stability and new oscillating increase. There is decrease in the final segment.

Chart IIB-1, US, New One-Family Houses Sold in the US, SAAR (Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate) 

Source: US Census Bureau

https://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/img/c25_curr.gif

Between 1991 and 2001, sales of new houses rose 78.4 percent at the average yearly rate of 6.0 percent, as shown in Table IB-5. Between 1995 and 2005 sales of new houses increased 92.4 percent at the yearly rate of 6.8 percent. There are similar rates in all years from 2000 to 2005. The boom in housing construction and sales began in the 1980s and 1990s. The collapse of real estate culminated several decades of housing subsidies and policies to lower mortgage rates and borrowing terms (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009b), 42-8). Sales of new houses sold in 2018 fell 6.0 percent relative to the same period in 1995 and 51.1 percent relative to 2005.

Table IIB-5, US, Percentage Change and Average Yearly Rate of Growth of Sales of New One-Family Houses

∆%

Average Yearly % Rate

1963-2018

12.0

0.2

1991-2001

78.4

6.0

1995-2005

92.4

6.8

2000-2005

46.3

7.9

1995-2018

-6.0

NA

2000-2018

-28.5

NA

2005-2018

-51.1

NA

NA: Not Applicable

Source: US Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/

Chart IIB-2 of the US Bureau of the Census provides the entire monthly sample of new houses sold in the US between Jan 1963 and Dec 2018 without seasonal adjustment. The series is almost stationary until the 1990s. There is sharp upward trend from the early 1990s to 2005-2006 after which new single-family houses sold collapse to levels below those in the beginning of the series.

Chart IIB-2, US, New Single-family Houses Sold, NSA, 1963-2019

Source: US Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/

The available historical annual data of median and average prices of new houses sold in the US between 1963 and 2018 is in Table IIB-6. On a yearly basis, median and average prices reached a peak in 2007 and then fell substantially. There is recovery in 2012-2018.

Table IIB-6, US, Median and Average Prices of New Houses Sold, Annual Data

Period

Median

Average

1963

$18,000

$19,300

1964

$18,900

$20,500

1965

$20,000

$21,500

1966

$21,400

$23,300

1967

$22,700

$24,600

1968

$24,700

$26,600

1969

$25,600

$27,900

1970

$23,400

$26,600

1971

$25,200

$28,300

1972

$27,600

$30,500

1973

$32,500

$35,500

1974

$35,900

$38,900

1975

$39,300

$42,600

1976

$44,200

$48,000

1977

$48,800

$54,200

1978

$55,700

$62,500

1979

$62,900

$71,800

1980

$64,600

$76,400

1981

$68,900

$83,000

1982

$69,300

$83,900

1983

$75,300

$89,800

1984

$79,900

$97,600

1985

$84,300

$100,800

1986

$92,000

$111,900

1987

$104,500

$127,200

1988

$112,500

$138,300

1989

$120,000

$148,800

1990

$122,900

$149,800

1991

$120,000

$147,200

1992

$121,500

$144,100

1993

$126,500

$147,700

1994

$130,000

$154,500

1995

$133,900

$158,700

1996

$140,000

$166,400

1997

$146,000

$176,200

1998

$152,500

$181,900

1999

$161,000

$195,600

2000

$169,000

$207,000

2001

$175,200

$213,200

2002

$187,600

$228,700

2003

$195,000

$246,300

2004

$221,000

$274,500

2005

$240,900

$297,000

2006

$246,500

$305,900

2007

$247,900

$313,600

2008

$232,100

$292,600

2009

$216,700

$270,900

2010

$221,800

$272,900

2011

$227,200

$267,900

2012

$245,200

$292,200

2013

$268,900

$324,500

2014

$288,500

$347,700

2015

$294,200

$352,700

2016

$307,800

$360,900

2017

$323,100

$384,900

2018

$325,300

$384,000

Note: Sales price includes the land

Source: US Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/

Prices rose sharply between 2000 and 2005 as shown in Table IIB-7. In fact, prices in 2018 are higher than in 2000. Between 2006 and 2018, median prices of new houses sold increased 32.0 percent and average prices increased 25.5 percent. Between 2017 and 2018, median prices increased 0.7 percent and average prices decreased 0.2 percent.

Table IIB-7, US, Percentage Change of New Houses Median and Average Prices, NSA, ∆%

Median New 
Home Sales Prices ∆%

Average New Home Sales Prices ∆%

∆% 2000 to 2003

15.4

19.0

∆% 2000 to 2005

42.5

43.5

∆% 2000 to 2018

92.5

85.5

∆% 2005 to 2018

35.0

29.3

∆% 2000 to 2006

45.9

47.8

∆% 2006 to 2018

32.0

25.5

∆% 2009 to 2018

50.1

41.7

∆% 2010 to 2018

46.7

40.7

∆% 2011 to 2018

43.2

43.3

∆% 2012 to 2018

32.7

31.4

∆% 2013 to 2018

21.0

18.3

∆% 2014 to 2018

12.8

10.4

∆% 2015 to 2018

10.6

8.9

∆% 2016 to 2018

5.7

6.4

∆% 2017 to 2018

0.7

-0.2

Source: US Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/

Chart IIB-3 of the US Census Bureau provides the entire series of new single-family sales median prices from Jan 1963 to Jan 2019. There is long-term sharp upward trend with few declines until the current collapse. Median prices increased sharply during the Great Inflation of the 1960s and 1970s and paused during the savings and loans crisis of the late 1980s and the recession of 1991. Housing subsidies throughout the 1990s caused sharp upward trend of median new house prices that accelerated after the fed funds rate of 1 percent from 2003 to 2004. There was sharp reduction of prices after 2006 with recovery recently above earlier prices.

Chart IIB-3, US, Median Sales Price of New Single-family Houses Sold, US Dollars, NSA, 1963-2019

Source: US Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/

Chart IIB-4 of the US Census Bureau provides average prices of new houses sold from the mid-1970s to Jan 2019. There is similar behavior as with median prices of new houses sold in Chart IIB-3. The only stress occurred in price pauses during the savings and loans crisis of the late 1980s and the collapse after 2006 with recent recovery.

Chart IIB-4, US, Average Sales Price of New Single-family Houses Sold, US Dollars, NSA, 1975-2019

Source: US Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/

Chart IIB-5 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the rate for the 30-year conventional mortgage, the yield of the 30-year Treasury bond and the rate of the overnight federal funds rate, monthly, from 1954 to 2016. All rates decline throughout the period from the Great Inflation of the 1970s through the following Great Moderation and until currently. In Apr 1971, the fed funds rate was 4.15 percent and the conventional mortgage rate 7.31 percent. In November 2012, the fed funds rate was 0.16 percent, the yield of the 30-year Treasury 2.80 percent and the conventional mortgage rate 3.35. The final segment shows an increase in the yield of the 30-year Treasury to 3.61 percent in July 2013 with the fed funds rate at 0.09 percent and the conventional mortgage at 4.37 percent. The final data point shows marginal decrease of the conventional mortgage rate to 3.60 percent in May 2016 with the yield of the 30-year Treasury bond at 2.63 percent and overnight rate on fed funds at 0.37 percent. The recent increase in interest rates if sustained could affect the US real estate market. Shayndi Raice and Nick Timiraos, writing on “Banks cut as mortgage boom ends,” on Jan 9, 2014, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303754404579310940019239208), analyze the drop in mortgage applications to a 13-year low, as measured by the Mortgage Bankers Association. Nick Timiraos, writing on “Demand for home loans plunges,” on Apr 24, 2014, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304788404579522051733228402?mg=reno64-wsj), analyzes data in Inside Mortgage Finance that mortgage lending of $235 billion in IQ2014 is 58 percent lower than a year earlier and 23 percent below IVQ2013. Mortgage lending collapsed to the lowest level in 14 years. In testimony before the Committee on the Budget of the US Senate on May 8, 2004, Chair Yellen provides analysis of the current economic situation and outlook (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20140507a.htm): “One cautionary note, though, is that readings on housing activity--a sector that has been recovering since 2011--have remained disappointing so far this year and will bear watching.”

Chart IIB-5, US, Thirty-year Conventional Mortgage, Thirty-year Treasury Bond and Overnight Federal Funds Rate, Monthly, 1954-2016

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/default.htm

Chart IIB-5A of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the yield of the 30-year Treasury bond and the rate of the overnight federal funds rate, monthly, from 2001 to 2019. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System discontinued the conventional mortgage rate in its data bank. The final data point is 2.40 percent for the fed funds rate in Feb 2019 and 3.02 percent for the thirty-year Treasury bond. The conventional mortgage rate stood at 4.37 percent in Feb 2019.

Chart IIB-5A, US, Thirty-year Treasury Bond and Overnight Federal Funds Rate, Monthly, 1977-2019

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/default.htm

Table IIB-8, US, Fed Funds Rate, Thirty Year Treasury Bond and Conventional Mortgage Rate, Monthly, Percent per Year, Dec 2012 to Mar 2018

Fed Funds Rate

Yield of Thirty Year Constant Maturity

Conventional Mortgage Rate

2012-12

0.16

2.88

3.35

2013-01

0.14

3.08

3.41

2013-02

0.15

3.17

3.53

2013-03

0.14

3.16

3.57

2013-04

0.15

2.93

3.45

2013-05

0.11

3.11

3.54

2013-06

0.09

3.40

4.07

2013-07

0.09

3.61

4.37

2013-08

0.08

3.76

4.46

2013-09

0.08

3.79

4.49

2013-10

0.09

3.68

4.19

2013-11

0.08

3.80

4.26

2013-12

0.09

3.89

4.46

2014-01

0.07

3.77

4.43

2014-02

0.07

3.66

4.30

2014-03

0.08

3.62

4.34

2014-04

0.09

3.52

4.34

2014-05

0.09

3.39

4.19

2014-06

0.10

3.42

4.16

2014-07

0.09

3.33

4.13

2014-08

0.09

3.2

4.12

2014-09

0.09

3.26

4.16

2014-10

0.09

3.04

4.04

2014-11

0.09

3.04

4.00

2014-12

0.12

2.83

3.86

2015-01

0.11

2.46

3.67

2015-02

0.11

2.57

3.71

2015-03

0.11

2.63

3.77

2015-04

0.12

2.59

3.67

2015-05

0.12

2.96

3.84

2015-06

0.13

3.11

3.98

2015-07

0.13

3.07

4.05

2015-08

0.14

2.86

3.91

2015-09

0.14

2.95

3.89

2015-10

0.12

2.89

3.80

2015-11

0.12

3.03

3.94

2015-12

0.24

2.97

3.96

2016-01

0.34

2.86

3.87

2016-02

0.38

2.62

3.66

2016-03

0.36

2.68

3.69

2016-04

0.37

2.62

3.61

2016-05

0.37

2.63

3.60

2016-06

0.38

2.45

3.57

2016-07

0.39

2.23

3.44

2016-08

0.40

2.26

3.44

2016-09

0.40

2.35

3.46

2016-10

0.40

2.50

3.47

2016-11

0.41

2.86

3.77

2016-12

0.54

3.11

4.20

2017-01

0.65

3.02

4.15

2017-02

0.66

3.03

4.17

2017-03

0.79

3.08

4.20

2017-04

0.90

2.94

4.05

2017-05

0.91

2.96

4.01

2017-06

1.04

2.80

3.90

2017-07

1.15

2.88

3.97

2017-08

1.16

2.80

3.88

2017-09

1.15

2.78

3.81

2017-10

1.15

2.88

3.90

2017-11

1.16

2.80

3.92

2017-12

1.30

2.77

3.95

2018-01

1.41

2.88

4.03

2018-02

1.42

3.13

4.33

2018-03

1.51

3.09

4.44

2018-04

1.69

3.07

4.47

2018-05

1.70

3.13

4.59

2018-06

1.82

3.05

4.57

2018-07

1.91

3.01

4.53

2018-08

1.91

3.04

4.55

2018-09

1.95

3.15

4.63

2018-10

2.19

3.34

4.83

2018-11

2.20

3.36

4.87

2018-12

2.27

3.10

4.64

2019-01

2.40

3.04

4.46

2019-02

2.40

3.02

4.37

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/default.htm

http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.htm

IIB2 United States House Prices. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, provides the FHFA House Price Index (HPI) that “is calculated using home sales price information from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-acquired mortgages” (http://fhfa.gov/webfiles/24216/q22012hpi.pdf 1). The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, provides the FHFA House Price Index (HPI) that “is calculated using home sales price information from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-acquired mortgages” (http://fhfa.gov/webfiles/24216/q22012hpi.pdf 1). Table IIA2-1 provides the FHFA HPI for purchases only, which shows behavior similar to that of the Case-Shiller index but with lower magnitudes. House prices catapulted from 2000 to 2003, 2005 and 2006. From IVQ2000 to IVQ2006, the index for the US as a whole rose 55.0 percent, with 62.1 percent for New England, 72.0 percent for Middle Atlantic, 71.2 percent for South Atlantic but only by 33.1 percent for East South Central. Prices fell relative to 2014 for the US and all regions from 2006 with exception of increase of 2.6 percent for East South Central. Prices for the US increased 4.9 percent in IVQ2014 relative to IVQ2013 and 12.9 percent from IVQ2012 to IVQ2014. From IVQ2000 to IVQ2014, prices rose for the US and the four regions in Table IIA2-1.

Table IIA2-1, US, FHFA House Price Index Purchases Only NSA ∆%

United States

New England

Middle Atlantic

South Atlantic

East South Central

IVQ2000
to
IVQ2003

24.0

40.6

35.8

25.9

11.0

IVQ2000
to
IVQ2005

50.5

65.0

67.6

62.9

25.4

IVQ2000 to
IVQ2006

55.0

62.1

72.0

71.2

33.1

IVQ2005 to
IVQ2014

-1.5

-8.7

-2.3

-7.4

8.9

IVQ2006
to
IVQ2014

-4.4

-7.1

-4.8

-11.9

2.6

IVQ2007 to
IVQ2014

-1.9

-5.1

-5.0

-8.6

0.7

IVQ2011 to
IVQ2014

18.9

7.3

6.9

19.9

11.8

IVQ2012 to
IVQ2014

12.9

6.8

5.7

13.8

8.6

IVQ2013 to IVQ2014

4.9

2.5

2.2

5.1

4.2

IVQ2000 to
IVQ2014

48.3

144.27

50.6

138.40

63.7

127.30

50.9

140.28

36.6

146.07

Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency

http://www.fhfa.gov/KeyTopics/Pages/House-Price-Index.aspx

Data of the FHFA HPI for the remaining US regions are in Table IIA2-2. Behavior is not very different from that in Table IIA2-1 with the exception of East North Central. House prices in the Pacific region doubled between 2000 and 2006. Although prices of houses declined sharply from 2005 and 2006 to 2014 with exception of West South Central and West North Central, there was still appreciation relative to 2000.

Table IIA2-2, US, FHFA House Price Index Purchases Only NSA ∆%

West South Central

West North Central

East North Central

Mountain

Pacific

IVQ2000
to
IVQ2003

11.1

18.3

14.7

18.9

44.6

IVQ2000
to
IVQ2005

23.9

31.0

23.8

58.0

107.7

IVQ2000 to IVQ2006

31.6

33.7

23.7

68.6

108.7

IVQ2005 to
IVQ2014

26.6

4.7

-5.4

-2.6

-14.7

IVQ2006
to
IVQ2014

19.1

2.6

-5.4

-8.7

-15.1

IVQ2007 to
IVQ2014

15.2

3.2

-2.1

-5.6

-6.0

IVQ2011 to
IVQ2014

18.1

13.5

14.2

32.9

37.6

IVQ2012 to
IVQ2014

12.1

8.9

11.1

17.9

24.4

IVQ2013 to IVQ2014

5.9

4.0

4.6

5.5

7.3

IVQ2000 to IVQ2014

56.8

145.53

37.1

158.59

17.1

155.13

53.9

172.46

77.1

132.21

Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency

http://www.fhfa.gov/KeyTopics/Pages/House-Price-Index.aspx

Monthly and 12-month percentage changes of the FHFA House Price Index are in Table IIA2-3. Percentage monthly increases of the FHFA index were positive from Apr to Jul 2011 with exception of declines in May and Aug 2011 while 12-month percentage changes improved steadily from around minus 6.0 percent in Mar to May 2011 to minus 4.5 percent in Jun 2011. The FHFA house price index fell 0.6 percent in Oct 2011 and fell 3.3 percent in the 12 months ending in Oct 2011. There was significant recovery in Nov 2011 with increase in the house price index of 0.5 percent and reduction of the 12-month rate of decline to 2.4 percent. The house price index rose 0.3 percent in Dec 2011 and the 12-month percentage change improved to minus 1.4 percent. There was further improvement with revised change of minus 0.3 percent in Jan 2012 and decline of the 12-month percentage change to minus 1.3 percent. The index improved to positive change of 0.2 percent in Feb 2012 and decrease of 0.1 percent in the 12 months ending in Feb 2012. There was strong improvement in Mar 2012 with gain in prices of 0.8 percent and 1.9 percent in 12 months. The house price index of FHFA increased 0.6 percent in Apr 2012 and 2.3 percent in 12 months and improvement continued with increase of 0.7 percent in May 2012 and 3.2 percent in the 12 months ending in May 2012. Improvement consolidated with increase of 0.4 percent in Jun 2012 and 3.3 percent in 12 months. In Jul 2012, the house price index increased 0.2 percent and 3.3 percent in 12 months. Strong increase of 0.6 percent in Aug 2012 pulled the 12-month change to 4.1 percent. There was another increase of 0.5 percent in Oct 2012 and 4.9 percent in 12 months followed by increase of 0.5 percent in Nov 2012 and 4.9 percent in 12 months. The FHFA house price index increased 0.8 percent in Jan 2013 and 6.3 percent in 12 months. Improvement continued with increase of 1.0 percent in Apr 2013 and 7.1 percent in 12 months. In May 2013, the house price indexed increased 0.6 percent and 7.2 percent in 12 months. The FHFA house price index increased 0.6 percent in Jun 2013 and 7.5 percent in 12 months. In Jul 2013, the FHFA house price index increased 0.6 percent and 7.8 percent in 12 months. Improvement continued with increase of 0.3 percent in Aug 2013 and 7.5 percent in 12 months. In Sep 2013, the house price index increased 0.5 percent and 7.6 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.3 percent in Oct 2013 and 7.3 percent in 12 months. In Nov 2013, the house price index increased 0.1 percent and increased 6.9 percent in 12 months. The house price index rose 0.5 percent in Dec 2013 and 6.9 percent in 12 months. Improvement continued with increase of 0.5 percent in Jan 2014 and 6.6 percent in 12 months. In Feb 2014, the house price index increased 0.5 percent and 6.5 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.3 percent in Mar 2014 and 5.9 percent in 12 months. In Apr 2014, the house price index increased 0.3 percent and increased 5.5 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.2 percent in May 2014 and 4.8 percent in 12 months. In Jun 2014, the house price index increased 0.5 percent and 4.7 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.4 percent in Jul 2014 and 4.5 percent in 12 months. In Sep 2014, the house price index increased 0.1 percent and increased 4.2 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.6 percent in Oct 2014 and 4.5 percent in 12 months. In Nov 2014, the house price index increased 0.4 percent and 4.9 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.7 percent in Dec 2014 and increased 5.2 percent in 12 months. In Mar 2015, the house price index increased 0.3 percent and increased 5.2 percent in 12 months. In Apr 2015, the house price index increased 0.3 percent and 5.2 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.6 percent in May 2015 and 5.5 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.5 percent in Jun 2015 and 5.4 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.4 percent in Jul 2015 and increased 5.4 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.2 percent in Aug 2015 and increased 5.1 percent in 12 months. In Sep 2015, the house price index increased 0.7 percent and increased 5.8 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.5 percent in Oct 2015 and increased 5.6 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.6 percent in Nov 2015 and increased 5.8 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.4 percent in Dec 2015 and increased 5.6 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.6 percent in Jan 2016 and increased 6.1 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.2 percent in Feb 2016 and increased 5.6 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.7 percent in Mar 2016 and increased 6.0 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.4 percent in Apr 2016 and increased 6.0 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.4 percent in May 2016 and increased 5.8 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.5 percent in Jun 2016 and increased 5.7 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.6 percent in Jul 2016 and increased 5.9 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.5 percent in Aug 2016 and increased 6.2 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.7 percent in Sep 2016 and increased 6.3 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.5 percent in Oct 2016 and increased 6.3 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.6 percent in Nov 2016 and increased 6.4 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.4 percent in Dec 2016 and increased 6.4 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.2 percent in Jan 2017 and increased 5.9 percent in 12 months. In Feb 2017, the house price index increased 0.9 percent and increased 6.7 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.5 percent in Mar 2017 and increased 6.5 percent in 12 months. In Apr 2017, the house price index increased 0.7 percent and increased 6.9 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.4 percent in May 2017 and increased 6.8 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.3 percent in Jun 2017 and increased 6.5 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.6 percent in Jul 2017 and increased 6.6 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.8 percent in Aug 2017 and increased 6.9 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.5 percent in Sep 2017 and increased 6.7 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.8 percent in Oct 2017 and increased 6.9 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.5 percent in Nov 2017 and increased 6.8 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.5 percent in Dec 2017 and increased 6.9 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.8 percent in Jan 2018 and increased 7.6 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 1.0 percent in Feb 2018 and increased 7.8 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.1 percent in Mar 2018 and increased 7.3 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.3 percent in Apr 2018 and increased 6.9 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.4 percent in May 2018 and increased 6.9 percent in 12 months ending in May 2018. House prices increased 0.4 percent in Jun 2016 and increased 6.9 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.4 percent in July 2018 and increased 6.8 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.5 percent in Aug 2018 and increased 6.5 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.3 percent in Sep 2018 and increased 6.3 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.4 percent in Oct 2018 and increased 5.9 percent in 12 months. The house price index increased 0.4 percent in Nov 2018 and increased 5.9 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.3 percent in Dec 2018 and increased 5.6 percent in 12 months.

Table IIA2-3, US, FHFA House Price Index Purchases Only SA. Month and NSA 12-Month ∆%

Month ∆% SA

12 Month ∆% NSA

12/1/2018

0.3

5.6

11/1/2018

0.4

5.9

10/1/2018

0.4

5.9

9/1/2018

0.3

6.3

8/1/2018

0.5

6.5

7/1/2018

0.4

6.8

6/1/2018

0.4

6.9

5/1/2018

0.4

6.9

4/1/2018

0.3

6.9

3/1/2018

0.1

7.3

2/1/2018

1.0

7.8

1/1/2018

0.8

7.6

12/1/2017

0.5

6.9

11/1/2017

0.5

6.8

10/1/2017

0.8

6.9

9/1/2017

0.5

6.7

8/1/2017

0.8

6.9

7/1/2017

0.6

6.6

6/1/2017

0.3

6.5

5/1/2017

0.4

6.8

4/1/2017

0.7

6.9

3/1/2017

0.5

6.5

2/1/2017

0.9

6.7

1/1/2017

0.2

5.9

12/1/2016

0.4

6.4

11/1/2016

0.6

6.4

10/1/2016

0.5

6.3

9/1/2016

0.7

6.3

8/1/2016

0.5

6.2

7/1/2016

0.6

5.9

6/1/2016

0.5

5.7

5/1/2016

0.4

5.8

4/1/2016

0.4

6.0

3/1/2016

0.7

6.0

2/1/2016

0.2

5.6

1/1/2016

0.6

6.1

12/1/2015

0.4

5.6

11/1/2015

0.6

5.8

10/1/2015

0.5

5.6

9/1/2015

0.7

5.8

8/1/2015

0.2

5.1

7/1/2015

0.4

5.4

6/1/2015

0.5

5.4

5/1/2015

0.6

5.5

4/1/2015

0.3

5.2

3/1/2015

0.3

5.2

2/1/2015

0.8

5.1

1/1/2015

0.1

4.8

12/1/2014

0.7

5.2

11/1/2014

0.4

4.9

10/1/2014

0.6

4.5

9/1/2014

0.1

4.2

8/1/2014

0.5

4.6

7/1/2014

0.4

4.5

6/1/2014

0.5

4.7

5/1/2014

0.2

4.8

4/1/2014

0.3

5.5

3/1/2014

0.3

5.9

2/1/2014

0.5

6.5

1/1/2014

0.5

6.6

12/1/2013

0.5

6.9

11/1/2013

0.1

6.9

10/1/2013

0.3

7.3

9/1/2013

0.5

7.6

8/1/2013

0.3

7.5

7/1/2013

0.6

7.8

6/1/2013

0.6

7.5

5/1/2013

0.8

7.2

4/1/2013

0.6

7.1

3/1/2013

1.0

7.1

2/1/2013

0.6

6.8

1/1/2013

0.8

6.3

12/1/2012

0.5

5.2

11/1/2012

0.5

4.9

10/1/2012

0.5

4.9

9/1/2012

0.4

3.8

8/1/2012

0.6

4.1

7/1/2012

0.2

3.3

6/1/2012

0.4

3.3

5/1/2012

0.7

3.2

4/1/2012

0.6

2.3

3/1/2012

0.8

1.9

2/1/2012

0.2

-0.1

1/1/2012

-0.3

-1.3

12/1/2011

0.3

-1.4

11/1/2011

0.5

-2.4

10/1/2011

-0.6

-3.3

9/1/2011

0.6

-2.5

8/1/2011

-0.3

-4.0

7/1/2011

0.3

-3.6

6/1/2011

0.4

-4.5

5/1/2011

-0.2

-5.9

4/1/2011

0.2

-5.8

3/1/2011

-1.0

-5.9

2/1/2011

-1.0

-5.2

1/1/2011

-0.4

-4.5

12/1/2010

-0.8

-3.9

12/1/2009

-1.0

-2.0

12/1/2008

-0.3

-10.4

12/1/2007

-0.5

-3.4

12/1/2006

0.1

2.4

12/1/2005

0.6

9.8

12/1/2004

0.9

10.2

12/1/2003

0.9

8.0

12/1/2002

0.7

7.8

12/1/2001

0.6

6.7

12/1/2000

0.6

7.1

12/1/1999

0.5

6.1

12/1/1998

0.4

5.9

12/1/1997

0.3

3.4

12/1/1996

0.3

2.7

12/1/1995

0.4

3.0

12/1/1994

0.0

2.5

12/1/1993

0.5

3.1

12/1/1992

-0.1

2.4

Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency

http://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools

The bottom part of Table IIA2-3 provides 12-month percentage changes of the FHFA house price index since 1992 when data become available for 1991. Table IIA2-4 provides percentage changes and average rates of percent change per year for various periods. Between 1992 and 2018, the FHFA house price index increased 157.9 percent at the yearly average rate of 3.7 percent. In the period 1992-2000, the FHFA house price index increased 39.2 percent at the average yearly rate of 4.2 percent. The average yearly rate of price increase accelerated to 7.5 percent in the period 2000-2003, 8.5 percent in 2000-2005 and 7.4 percent in 2000-2006. At the margin, the average rate jumped to 10.0 percent in 2003-2005 and 7.4 percent in 2003-2006. House prices measured by the FHFA house price index increased 20.5 percent at the average yearly rate of 1.6 percent between 2006 and 2018 and 23.3 percent between 2005 and 2018 at the average yearly rate of 1.6 percent.

Table IIA2-4, US, FHFA House Price Index, Percentage Change and Average Rate of Percentage Change per Year, Selected Dates 1992-2017

Dec

∆%

Average ∆% per Year

1992-2018

157.9

3.7

1992-2000

39.2

4.2

2000-2003

24.2

7.5

2000-2005

50.2

8.5

2003-2005

21.0

10.0

2005-2018

23.3

1.6

2000-2006

53.8

7.4

2003-2006

23.8

7.4

2006-2018

20.5

1.6

Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency

http://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools

The explanation of the sharp contraction of household wealth can probably be found in the origins of the financial crisis and global recession. Let V(T) represent the value of the firm’s equity at time T and B stand for the promised debt of the firm to bondholders and assume that corporate management, elected by equity owners, is acting on the interests of equity owners. Robert C. Merton (1974, 453) states:

“On the maturity date T, the firm must either pay the promised payment of B to the debtholders or else the current equity will be valueless. Clearly, if at time T, V(T) > B, the firm should pay the bondholders because the value of equity will be V(T) – B > 0 whereas if they do not, the value of equity would be zero. If V(T) ≤ B, then the firm will not make the payment and default the firm to the bondholders because otherwise the equity holders would have to pay in additional money and the (formal) value of equity prior to such payments would be (V(T)- B) < 0.”

Pelaez and Pelaez (The Global Recession Risk (2007), 208-9) apply this analysis to the US housing market in 2005-2006 concluding:

“The house market [in 2006] is probably operating with low historical levels of individual equity. There is an application of structural models [Duffie and Singleton 2003] to the individual decisions on whether or not to continue paying a mortgage. The costs of sale would include realtor and legal fees. There could be a point where the expected net sale value of the real estate may be just lower than the value of the mortgage. At that point, there would be an incentive to default. The default vulnerability of securitization is unknown.”

There are multiple important determinants of the interest rate: “aggregate wealth, the distribution of wealth among investors, expected rate of return on physical investment, taxes, government policy and inflation” (Ingersoll 1987, 405). Aggregate wealth is a major driver of interest rates (Ibid, 406). Unconventional monetary policy, with zero fed funds rates and flattening of long-term yields by quantitative easing, causes uncontrollable effects on risk taking that can have profound undesirable effects on financial stability. Excessively aggressive and exotic monetary policy is the main culprit and not the inadequacy of financial management and risk controls.

The net worth of the economy depends on interest rates. In theory, “income is generally defined as the amount a consumer unit could consume (or believe that it could) while maintaining its wealth intact” (Friedman 1957, 10). Income, Y, is a flow that is obtained by applying a rate of return, r, to a stock of wealth, W, or Y = rW (Ibid). According to a subsequent restatement: “The basic idea is simply that individuals live for many years and that therefore the appropriate constraint for consumption decisions is the long-run expected yield from wealth r*W. This yield was named permanent income: Y* = r*W” (Darby 1974, 229), where * denotes permanent. The simplified relation of income and wealth can be restated as:

W = Y/r (1)

Equation (1) shows that as r goes to zero, r →0, W grows without bound, W→∞.

Lowering the interest rate near the zero bound in 2003-2004 caused the illusion of permanent increases in wealth or net worth in the balance sheets of borrowers and also of lending institutions, securitized banking and every financial institution and investor in the world. The discipline of calculating risks and returns was seriously impaired. The objective of monetary policy was to encourage borrowing, consumption and investment but the exaggerated stimulus resulted in a financial crisis of major proportions as the securitization that had worked for a long period was shocked with policy-induced excessive risk, imprudent credit, high leverage and low liquidity by the incentive to finance everything overnight at close to zero interest rates, from adjustable rate mortgages (ARMS) to asset-backed commercial paper of structured investment vehicles (SIV).

The consequences of inflating liquidity and net worth of borrowers were a global hunt for yields to protect own investments and money under management from the zero interest rates and unattractive long-term yields of Treasuries and other securities. Monetary policy distorted the calculations of risks and returns by households, business and government by providing central bank cheap money. Short-term zero interest rates encourage financing of everything with short-dated funds, explaining the SIVs created off-balance sheet to issue short-term commercial paper to purchase default-prone mortgages that were financed in overnight or short-dated sale and repurchase agreements (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 50-1, Regulation of Banks and Finance, 59-60, Globalization and the State Vol. I, 89-92, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 198-9, Government Intervention in Globalization, 62-3, International Financial Architecture, 144-9). ARMS were created to lower monthly mortgage payments by benefitting from lower short-dated reference rates. Financial institutions economized in liquidity that was penalized with near zero interest rates. There was no perception of risk because the monetary authority guaranteed a minimum or floor price of all assets by maintaining low interest rates forever or equivalent to writing an illusory put option on wealth. Subprime mortgages were part of the put on wealth by an illusory put on house prices. The housing subsidy of $221 billion per year created the impression of ever increasing house prices. The suspension of auctions of 30-year Treasuries was designed to increase demand for mortgage-backed securities, lowering their yield, which was equivalent to lowering the costs of housing finance and refinancing. Fannie and Freddie purchased or guaranteed $1.6 trillion of nonprime mortgages and worked with leverage of 75:1 under Congress-provided charters and lax oversight. The combination of these policies resulted in high risks because of the put option on wealth by near zero interest rates, excessive leverage because of cheap rates, low liquidity because of the penalty in the form of low interest rates and unsound credit decisions because the put option on wealth by monetary policy created the illusion that nothing could ever go wrong, causing the credit/dollar crisis and global recession (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 157-66, Regulation of Banks, and Finance, 217-27, International Financial Architecture, 15-18, The Global Recession Risk, 221-5, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 197-213, Government Intervention in Globalization, 182-4).

There are significant elements of the theory of bank financial fragility of Diamond and Dybvig (1983) and Diamond and Rajan (2000, 2001a, 2001b) that help to explain the financial fragility of banks during the credit/dollar crisis (see also Diamond 2007). The theory of Diamond and Dybvig (1983) as exposed by Diamond (2007) is that banks funding with demand deposits have a mismatch of liquidity (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 58-66). A run occurs when too many depositors attempt to withdraw cash at the same time. All that is needed is an expectation of failure of the bank. Three important functions of banks are providing evaluation, monitoring and liquidity transformation. Banks invest in human capital to evaluate projects of borrowers in deciding if they merit credit. The evaluation function reduces adverse selection or financing projects with low present value. Banks also provide important monitoring services of following the implementation of projects, avoiding moral hazard that funds be used for, say, real estate speculation instead of the original project of factory construction. The transformation function of banks involves both assets and liabilities of bank balance sheets. Banks convert an illiquid asset or loan for a project with cash flows in the distant future into a liquid liability in the form of demand deposits that can be withdrawn immediately.

In the theory of banking of Diamond and Rajan (2000, 2001a, 2001b), the bank creates liquidity by tying human assets to capital. The collection skills of the relationship banker convert an illiquid project of an entrepreneur into liquid demand deposits that are immediately available for withdrawal. The deposit/capital structure is fragile because of the threat of bank runs. In these days of online banking, the run on Washington Mutual was through withdrawals online. A bank run can be triggered by the decline of the value of bank assets below the value of demand deposits.

Pelaez and Pelaez (Regulation of Banks and Finance 2009b, 60, 64-5) find immediate application of the theories of banking of Diamond, Dybvig and Rajan to the credit/dollar crisis after 2007. It is a credit crisis because the main issue was the deterioration of the credit portfolios of securitized banks as a result of default of subprime mortgages. It is a dollar crisis because of the weakening dollar resulting from relatively low interest rate policies of the US. It caused systemic effects that converted into a global recession not only because of the huge weight of the US economy in the world economy but also because the credit crisis transferred to the UK and Europe. Management skills or human capital of banks are illustrated by the financial engineering of complex products. The increasing importance of human relative to inanimate capital (Rajan and Zingales 2000) is revolutionizing the theory of the firm (Zingales 2000) and corporate governance (Rajan and Zingales 2001). Finance is one of the most important examples of this transformation. Profits were derived from the charter in the original banking institution. Pricing and structuring financial instruments was revolutionized with option pricing formulas developed by Black and Scholes (1973) and Merton (1973, 1974, 1998) that permitted the development of complex products with fair pricing. The successful financial company must attract and retain finance professionals who have invested in human capital, which is a sunk cost to them and not of the institution where they work.

The complex financial products created for securitized banking with high investments in human capital are based on houses, which are as illiquid as the projects of entrepreneurs in the theory of banking. The liquidity fragility of the securitized bank is equivalent to that of the commercial bank in the theory of banking (Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 65). Banks created off-balance sheet structured investment vehicles (SIV) that issued commercial paper receiving AAA rating because of letters of liquidity guarantee by the banks. The commercial paper was converted into liquidity by its use as collateral in SRPs at the lowest rates and minimal haircuts because of the AAA rating of the guarantor bank. In the theory of banking, default can be triggered when the value of assets is perceived as lower than the value of the deposits. Commercial paper issued by SIVs, securitized mortgages and derivatives all obtained SRP liquidity on the basis of illiquid home mortgage loans at the bottom of the pyramid. The run on the securitized bank had a clear origin (Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 65):

“The increasing default of mortgages resulted in an increase in counterparty risk. Banks were hit by the liquidity demands of their counterparties. The liquidity shock extended to many segments of the financial markets—interbank loans, asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP), high-yield bonds and many others—when counterparties preferred lower returns of highly liquid safe havens, such as Treasury securities, than the risk of having to sell the collateral in SRPs at deep discounts or holding an illiquid asset. The price of an illiquid asset is near zero.”

Gorton and Metrick (2010H, 507) provide a revealing quote to the work in 1908 of Edwin R. A. Seligman, professor of political economy at Columbia University, founding member of the American Economic Association and one of its presidents and successful advocate of progressive income taxation. The intention of the quote is to bring forth the important argument that financial crises are explained in terms of “confidence” but as Professor Seligman states in reference to historical banking crises in the US, the important task is to explain what caused the lack of confidence. It is instructive to repeat the more extended quote of Seligman (1908, xi) on the explanations of banking crises:

“The current explanations may be divided into two categories. Of these the first includes what might be termed the superficial theories. Thus it is commonly stated that the outbreak of a crisis is due to lack of confidence,--as if the lack of confidence was not in itself the very thing which needs to be explained. Of still slighter value is the attempt to associate a crisis with some particular governmental policy, or with some action of a country’s executive. Such puerile interpretations have commonly been confined to countries like the United States, where the political passions of democracy have had the fullest way. Thus the crisis of 1893 was ascribed by the Republicans to the impending Democratic tariff of 1894; and the crisis of 1907 has by some been termed the ‘[Theodore] Roosevelt panic,” utterly oblivious of the fact that from the time of President Jackson, who was held responsible for the troubles of 1837, every successive crisis had had its presidential scapegoat, and has been followed by a political revulsion. Opposed to these popular, but wholly unfounded interpretations, is the second class of explanations, which seek to burrow beneath the surface and to discover the more occult and fundamental causes of the periodicity of crises.”

Scholars ignore superficial explanations in the effort to seek good and truth. The problem of economic analysis of the credit/dollar crisis is the lack of a structural model with which to attempt empirical determination of causes (Gorton and Metrick 2010SB). There would still be doubts even with a well-specified structural model because samples of economic events do not typically permit separating causes and effects. There is also confusion is separating the why of the crisis and how it started and propagated, all of which are extremely important.

In true heritage of the principles of Seligman (1908), Gorton (2009EFM) discovers a prime causal driver of the credit/dollar crisis. The objective of subprime and Alt-A mortgages was to facilitate loans to populations with modest means so that they could acquire a home. These borrowers would not receive credit because of (1) lack of funds for down payments; (2) low credit rating and information; (3) lack of information on income; and (4) errors or lack of other information. Subprime mortgage “engineering” was based on the belief that both lender and borrower could benefit from increases in house prices over the short run. The initial mortgage would be refinanced in two or three years depending on the increase of the price of the house. According to Gorton (2009EFM, 13, 16):

“The outstanding amounts of Subprime and Alt-A [mortgages] combined amounted to about one quarter of the $6 trillion mortgage market in 2004-2007Q1. Over the period 2000-2007, the outstanding amount of agency mortgages doubled, but subprime grew 800%! Issuance in 2005 and 2006 of Subprime and Alt-A mortgages was almost 30% of the mortgage market. Since 2000 the Subprime and Alt-A segments of the market grew at the expense of the Agency (i.e., the government sponsored entities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) share, which fell from almost 80% (by outstanding or issuance) to about half by issuance and 67% by outstanding amount. The lender’s option to rollover the mortgage after an initial period is implicit in the subprime mortgage. The key design features of a subprime mortgage are: (1) it is short term, making refinancing important; (2) there is a step-up mortgage rate that applies at the end of the first period, creating a strong incentive to refinance; and (3) there is a prepayment penalty, creating an incentive not to refinance early.”

The prime objective of successive administrations in the US during the past 20 years and actually since the times of Roosevelt in the 1930s has been to provide “affordable” financing for the “American dream” of home ownership. The US housing finance system is mixed with public, public/private and purely private entities. The Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) system was established by Congress in 1932 that also created the Federal Housing Administration in 1934 with the objective of insuring homes against default. In 1938, the government created the Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae, to foster a market for FHA-insured mortgages. Government-insured mortgages were transferred from Fannie Mae to the Government National Mortgage Association, or Ginnie Mae, to permit Fannie Mae to become a publicly-owned company. Securitization of mortgages began in 1970 with the government charter to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or Freddie Mac, with the objective of bundling mortgages created by thrift institutions that would be marketed as bonds with guarantees by Freddie Mac (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 42-8). In the third quarter of 2008, total mortgages in the US were $12,057 billion of which 43.5 percent, or $5423 billion, were retained or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 45). In 1990, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had a share of only 25.4 percent of total mortgages in the US. Mortgages in the US increased from $6922 billion in 2002 to $12,088 billion in 2007, or by 74.6 percent, while the retained or guaranteed portfolio of Fannie and Freddie rose from $3180 billion in 2002 to $4934 billion in 2007, or by 55.2 percent.

According to Pinto (2008) in testimony to Congress:

“There are approximately 25 million subprime and Alt-A loans outstanding, with an unpaid principal amount of over $4.5 trillion, about half of them held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie. Their high risk activities were allowed to operate at 75:1 leverage ratio. While they may deny it, there can be no doubt that Fannie and Freddie now own or guarantee $1.6 trillion in subprime, Alt-A and other default prone loans and securities. This comprises over 1/3 of their risk portfolios and amounts to 34% of all the subprime loans and 60% of all Alt-A loans outstanding. These 10.5 million unsustainable, nonprime loans are experiencing a default rate 8 times the level of the GSEs’ 20 million traditional quality loans. The GSEs will be responsible for a large percentage of an estimated 8.8 million foreclosures expected over the next 4 years, accounting for the failure of about 1 in 6 home mortgages. Fannie and Freddie have subprimed America.”

In perceptive analysis of growth and macroeconomics in the past six decades, Rajan (2012FA) argues that “the West can’t borrow and spend its way to recovery.” The Keynesian paradigm is not applicable in current conditions. Advanced economies in the West could be divided into those that reformed regulatory structures to encourage productivity and others that retained older structures. In the period from 1950 to 2000, Cobet and Wilson (2002) find that US productivity, measured as output/hour, grew at the average yearly rate of 2.9 percent while Japan grew at 6.3 percent and Germany at 4.7 percent (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 135-44). In the period from 1995 to 2000, output/hour grew at the average yearly rate of 4.6 percent in the US but at lower rates of 3.9 percent in Japan and 2.6 percent in the US. Rajan (2012FA) argues that the differential in productivity growth was accomplished by deregulation in the US at the end of the 1970s and during the 1980s. In contrast, Europe did not engage in reform with the exception of Germany in the early 2000s that empowered the German economy with significant productivity advantage. At the same time, technology and globalization increased relative remunerations in highly-skilled, educated workers relative to those without skills for the new economy. It was then politically appealing to improve the fortunes of those left behind by the technological revolution by means of increasing cheap credit. As Rajan (2012FA) argues:

“In 1992, Congress passed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act, partly to gain more control over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant private mortgage agencies, and partly to promote affordable homeownership for low-income groups. Such policies helped money flow to lower-middle-class households and raised their spending—so much so that consumption inequality rose much less than income inequality in the years before the crisis. These policies were also politically popular. Unlike when it came to an expansion in government welfare transfers, few groups opposed expanding credit to the lower-middle class—not the politicians who wanted more growth and happy constituents, not the bankers and brokers who profited from the mortgage fees, not the borrowers who could now buy their dream houses with virtually no money down, and not the laissez-faire bank regulators who thought they could pick up the pieces if the housing market collapsed. The Federal Reserve abetted these shortsighted policies. In 2001, in response to the dot-com bust, the Fed cut short-term interest rates to the bone. Even though the overstretched corporations that were meant to be stimulated were not interested in investing, artificially low interest rates acted as a tremendous subsidy to the parts of the economy that relied on debt, such as housing and finance. This led to an expansion in housing construction (and related services, such as real estate brokerage and mortgage lending), which created jobs, especially for the unskilled. Progressive economists applauded this process, arguing that the housing boom would lift the economy out of the doldrums. But the Fed-supported bubble proved unsustainable. Many construction workers have lost their jobs and are now in deeper trouble than before, having also borrowed to buy unaffordable houses. Bankers obviously deserve a large share of the blame for the crisis. Some of the financial sector’s activities were clearly predatory, if not outright criminal. But the role that the politically induced expansion of credit played cannot be ignored; it is the main reason the usual checks and balances on financial risk taking broke down.”

In fact, Raghuram G. Rajan (2005) anticipated low liquidity in financial markets resulting from low interest rates before the financial crisis that caused distortions of risk/return decisions provoking the credit/dollar crisis and global recession from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009. Near zero interest rates of unconventional monetary policy induced excessive risks and low liquidity in financial decisions that were critical as a cause of the credit/dollar crisis after 2007. Rajan (2012FA) argues that it is not feasible to return to the employment and income levels before the credit/dollar crisis because of the bloated construction sector, financial system and government budgets.

Table IIA-1 shows the euphoria of prices during the housing boom and the subsequent decline. House prices rose 95.4 percent in the 10-city composite of the Case-Shiller home price index, 81.0 percent in the 20-city composite and 65.6 percent in the US national home price index between Dec 2000 and Dec 2005. Prices rose around 100 percent from Dec 2000 to Dec 2006, increasing 95.8 percent for the 10-city composite, 82.2 percent for the 20-city composite and 68.4 percent in the US national index. House prices rose 37.6 percent between Dec 2003 and Dec 2005 for the 10-city composite, 34.2 percent for the 20-city composite and 29.0 percent for the US national propelled by low fed funds rates of 1.0 percent between Jul 2003 and Jun 2004. Fed funds rates increased by 0.25 basis points at every meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) from Jun 2004 until Jun 2006, reaching 5.25 percent. Simultaneously, the suspension of auctions of the 30-year Treasury bond caused decline of yields of mortgage-backed securities with intended decrease in mortgage rates. Similarly, between Dec 2003 and Dec 2006, the 10-city index gained 37.9 percent; the 20-city index increased 35.1 percent; and the US national 31.2 percent. House prices have increased from Dec 2006 to Dec 2018 by 1.9 percent for the 10-city composite, increasing 4.4 percent for the 20-city composite and increasing 12.1 percent for the US national. Measuring house prices is quite difficult because of the lack of homogeneity that is typical of standardized commodities. In the 12 months ending in Dec 2018, house prices increased 3.8 percent in the 10-city composite, increasing 4.2 percent in the 20-city composite and 4.7 percent in the US national. Table IIA-1 also shows that house prices increased 99.6 percent between Dec 2000 and Dec 2018 for the 10-city composite, increasing 90.9 percent for the 20-city composite and 88.8 percent for the US national. House prices are close to the lowest level since peaks during the boom before the financial crisis and global recession. The 10-city composite increased 0.1 percent from the peak in Jun 2006 to Dec 2018 and the 20-city composite increased 3.1 percent from the peak in Jul 2006 to Dec 2018. The US national increased 11.3 percent in Dec 2018 from the peak of the 10-city composite in Jun 2006 and increased 11.2 percent from the peak of the 20-city composite in Jul 2006. The final part of Table II-2 provides average annual percentage rates of growth of the house price indexes of Standard & Poor’s Case-Shiller. The average annual growth rate between Dec 1987 and Dec 2018 for the 10-city composite was 3.9 percent and 3.6 percent for the US national. Data for the 20-city composite are available only beginning in Jan 2000. House prices accelerated in the 1990s with the average rate of the 10-city composite of 5.0 percent between Dec 1992 and Dec 2000 while the average rate for the period Dec 1987 to Dec 2000 was 3.8 percent. The average rate for the US national was 3.6 percent from Dec 1987 to Dec 2018 and 3.6 percent from Dec 1987 to Dec 2000. Although the global recession affecting the US between IVQ2007 (Dec) and IIQ2009 (Jun) caused decline of house prices of slightly above 30 percent, the average annual growth rate of the 10-city composite between Dec 2000 and Dec 2018 was 3.9 percent while the rate of the 20-city composite was 3.7 percent and 3.6 percent for the US national.

Table IIA-1, US, Percentage Changes of Standard & Poor’s Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, Not Seasonally Adjusted, ∆%

10-City Composite

20-City Composite

US National

∆% Dec 2000 to Dec 2003

42.0

34.9

28.3

∆% Dec 2000 to Dec 2005

95.4

81.0

65.6

∆% Dec 2003 to Dec 2005

37.6

34.2

29.0

∆% Dec 2000 to Dec 2006

95.8

82.2

68.4

∆% Dec 2003 to Dec 2006

37.9

35.1

31.2

∆% Dec 2005 to Dec 2018

2.1

5.4

14.0

∆% Dec 2006 to Dec 2018

1.9

4.7

12.1

∆% Dec 2009 to Dec 2018

43.3

46.0

40.0

∆% Dec 2010 to Dec 2018

45.2

49.6

46.0

∆% Dec 2011 to Dec 2018

51.5

55.9

51.9

∆% Dec 2012 to Dec 2018

42.9

45.8

42.7

∆% Dec 2013 to Dec 2018

25.8

28.6

28.9

∆% Dec 2014 to Dec 2018

20.8

23.2

23.3

∆% Dec 2015 to Dec 2018

15.1

16.7

17.2

∆% Dec 2016 to Dec 2018

10.0

10.7

11.3

∆% Dec 2017 to Dec 2018

3.8

4.2

4.7

∆% Dec 2000 to Dec 2018

99.6

90.9

88.8

∆% Peak Jun 2006 Dec 2018

0.1

11.3

∆% Peak Jul 2006 to Dec 2018

3.1

11.2

Average ∆% Dec 1987-Dec 2018

3.9

NA

3.6

Average ∆% Dec 1987-Dec 2000

3.8

NA

3.6

Average ∆% Dec 1992-Dec 2000

5.0

NA

4.5

Average ∆% Dec 2000-Dec 2018

3.9

3.7

3.6

Source: https://us.spindices.com/index-family/real-estate/sp-corelogic-case-shiller

Price increases measured by the Case-Shiller house price indices show in data for Dec 2018 that “the rate of home price increases across the U.S. has continued to slow” (https://www.spice-indices.com/idpfiles/spice-assets/resources/public/documents/880361_cshomeprice-release-0226.pdf?force_download=true ). Monthly house prices increased sharply from Feb 2013 to Jan 2014 for both the 10- and 20-city composites, as shown in Table IIA-2. In Jan 2013, the seasonally adjusted 10-city composite increased 0.8 percent and the 20-city increased 0.8 percent while the 10-city not seasonally adjusted changed 0.0 percent and the 20-city changed 0.0 percent. House prices increased at high monthly percentage rates from Feb to Nov 2013. House prices seasonally adjusted declined in most months for both the 10-city and 20-city Case-Shiller composites from Dec 2010 to Jan 2012, as shown in Table IIA-2. The most important seasonal factor in house prices is school changes for wealthier homeowners with more expensive houses. Without seasonal adjustment, house prices fell from Dec 2010 throughout Mar 2011 and then increased in every month from Apr to Aug 2011 but fell in every month from Sep 2011 to Feb 2012. The not seasonally adjusted index registers decline in Mar 2012 of 0.1 percent for the 10-city composite and is flat for the 20-city composite. Not seasonally adjusted house prices increased 1.4 percent in Apr 2012 and at high monthly percentage rates until Sep 2012. House prices not seasonally adjusted stalled from Oct 2012 to Jan 2013 and surged from Feb to Sep 2013, decelerating in Oct 2013-Feb 2014. House prices grew at fast rates in Mar 2014. The 10-city NSA index changed minus 0.2 percent in Dec 2018 and the 20-city changed minus 0.2 percent. The 10-city SA increased 0.2 percent in Dec 2018 and the 20-city composite SA increased 0.2 percent. Declining house prices cause multiple adverse effects of which two are quite evident. (1) There is a disincentive to buy houses in continuing price declines. (2) More mortgages could be losing fair market value relative to mortgage debt. Another possibility is a wealth effect that consumers restrain purchases because of the decline of their net worth in houses.

Table IIA-2, US, Monthly Percentage Change of S&P Corelogic Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, Seasonally Adjusted and Not Seasonally Adjusted, ∆%

10 City Composite SA

10 City Composite NSA

20 City Composite SA

20 City Composite NSA

December 2018

0.2

-0.2

0.2

-0.2

November 2018

0.2

-0.2

0.3

-0.1

October 2018

0.4

0.0

0.4

0.0

September 2018

0.6

0.0

0.7

0.0

August 2018

-0.1

0.1

-0.2

0.0

July 2018

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.3

June 2018

0.2

0.5

0.2

0.6

May 2018

0.1

0.6

0.2

0.7

April 2018

-0.3

0.7

-0.2

0.9

March 2018

0.7

0.9

0.8

1.0

February 2018

0.8

0.7

0.9

0.7

January 2018

0.6

0.3

0.7

0.3

December 2017

0.6

0.2

0.6

0.2

November 2017

0.7

0.3

0.7

0.2

October 2017

0.6

0.2

0.6

0.2

September 2017

1.0

0.4

1.1

0.3

August 2017

0.2

0.4

0.1

0.4

July 2017

0.5

0.8

0.5

0.7

June 2017

0.3

0.7

0.3

0.7

May 2017

0.3

0.8

0.3

0.9

April 2017

-0.2

0.8

-0.1

1.0

March 2017

0.7

0.8

0.7

1.0

February 2017

0.4

0.3

0.6

0.4

January 2017

0.7

0.3

0.6

0.2

December 2016

0.7

0.2

0.7

0.2

November 2016

0.6

0.2

0.7

0.2

October 2016

0.4

-0.1

0.5

0.0

September 2016

0.6

0.0

0.7

0.1

August 2016

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.3

July 2016

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.6

June 2016

0.2

0.7

0.3

0.8

May 2016

0.2

0.8

0.2

0.9

April 2016

0.1

1.0

0.1

1.1

March 2016

0.7

0.9

0.7

1.0

February 2016

0.4

0.2

0.4

0.2

January 2016

0.4

-0.1

0.5

0.0

December 2015

0.4

-0.1

0.5

0.0

November 2015

0.5

0.0

0.6

0.0

October 2015

0.5

-0.1

0.6

0.0

September 2015

0.6

0.1

0.7

0.1

August 2015

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.3

July 2015

0.2

0.6

0.3

0.7

June 2015

0.2

0.9

0.3

1.0

May 2015

0.3

1.0

0.3

1.1

April 2015

0.2

1.1

0.2

1.1

March 2015

0.5

0.8

0.6

0.9

February 2015

0.8

0.5

0.8

0.5

January 2015

0.4

-0.1

0.5

-0.1

December 2014

0.6

0.0

0.6

0.0

November 2014

0.4

-0.3

0.4

-0.2

October 2014

0.5

-0.1

0.5

-0.1

September 2014

0.3

-0.1

0.4

-0.1

August 2014

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.2

July 2014

0.1

0.6

0.1

0.6

June 2014

0.2

1.0

0.2

1.0

May 2014

0.1

1.1

0.2

1.1

April 2014

0.3

1.1

0.3

1.2

March 2014

0.5

0.8

0.5

0.9

February 2014

0.4

0.0

0.4

0.0

January 2014

0.6

-0.1

0.6

-0.1

December 2013

0.5

-0.1

0.5

-0.1

November 2013

0.7

0.0

0.7

-0.1

October 2013

0.9

0.2

0.9

0.2

September 2013

1.1

0.7

1.1

0.7

August 2013

1.2

1.3

1.2

1.3

July 2013

1.2

1.9

1.1

1.8

June 2013

1.2

2.2

1.2

2.2

May 2013

1.4

2.5

1.4

2.5

April 2013

1.9

2.6

1.9

2.6

March 2013

1.0

1.3

1.0

1.3

February 2013

0.9

0.3

0.9

0.2

January 2013

0.8

0.0

0.8

0.0

December 2012

0.9

0.2

0.9

0.2

November 2012

0.6

-0.3

0.7

-0.2

October 2012

0.6

-0.2

0.7

-0.1

September 2012

0.6

0.3

0.6

0.3

August 2012

0.6

0.8

0.7

0.9

July 2012

0.6

1.5

0.7

1.6

June 2012

1.0

2.1

1.1

2.3

May 2012

1.0

2.2

1.1

2.4

April 2012

0.8

1.4

0.9

1.4

March 2012

-0.2

-0.1

-0.3

0.0

February 2012

-0.2

-0.9

-0.1

-0.8

January 2012

-0.3

-1.1

-0.2

-1.0

December 2011

-0.5

-1.2

-0.4

-1.1

November 2011

-0.6

-1.4

-0.5

-1.3

October 2011

-0.5

-1.3

-0.5

-1.4

September 2011

-0.3

-0.6

-0.4

-0.7

August 2011

-0.2

0.1

-0.2

0.1

July 2011

0.0

0.9

0.0

1.0

June 2011

-0.1

1.0

0.0

1.2

May 2011

-0.2

1.0

-0.2

1.0

April 2011

0.1

0.6

0.2

0.6

March 2011

-0.9

-1.0

-1.1

-1.0

February 2011

-0.5

-1.3

-0.4

-1.2

January 2011

-0.3

-1.1

-0.3

-1.1

December 2010

-0.2

-0.9

-0.2

-1.0

Source: https://us.spindices.com/index-family/real-estate/sp-corelogic-case-shiller

Table IIA-4 summarizes the brutal drops in assets and net worth of US households and nonprofit organizations from 2007 to 2008 and 2009. Total assets fell $9.6 trillion or 11.6 percent from 2007 to 2008 and $8.1 trillion or 9.8 percent to 2009. Net worth fell $9.5 trillion from 2007 to 2008 or 13.9 percent and $7.9 trillion to 2009 or 11.6 percent. Subsidies to housing prolonged over decades together with interest rates at 1.0 percent from Jun 2003 to Jun 2004 inflated valuations of real estate and risk financial assets such as equities. The increase of fed funds rates by 25 basis points until 5.25 percent in Jun 2006 reversed carry trades through exotic vehicles such as subprime adjustable rate mortgages (ARM) and world financial markets. Short-term zero interest rates encourage financing of everything with short-dated funds, explaining the SIVs created off-balance sheet to issue short-term commercial paper to purchase default-prone mortgages that were financed in overnight or short-dated sale and repurchase agreements (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 50-1, Regulation of Banks and Finance, 59-60, Globalization and the State Vol. I, 89-92, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 198-9, Government Intervention in Globalization, 62-3, International Financial Architecture, 144-9).

Table IIA-4, Difference of Balance Sheet of Households and Nonprofit Organizations, Billions of Dollars from 2007 to 2008 and 2009

2007

2008

Change to 2008

2009

Change to 2009

A

82,929.2

73,344.8

-9,584.4

74,800.4

-8,128.8

Non
FIN

27,989.1

24,354.7

-3,634.4

23,456.0

-4,533.1

RE

23,192.4

19,435.0

-3,757.4

18,519.5

-4,672.9

FIN

54,940.1

48,990.1

-5,950.0

51,344.4

-3,595.7

LIAB

14,522.0

14,436.4

-85.6

14,310.4

-211.6

NW

68,407.2

58,908.4

-9,498.8

60,490.0

-7,917.2

A: Assets; Non FIN: Nonfinancial Assets; RE: Real Estate; FIN: Financial Assets; LIAB: Liabilities; NW: Net Worth

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 2018. Flow of funds, balance sheets and integrated macroeconomic accounts: second quarter 2018. Washington, DC, Federal Reserve System, Sep 20. https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/default.htm

© Carlos M. Pelaez, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019.

No comments:

Post a Comment