PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Inflation (MUCH) Higher Than Reported</TITLE>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>September 27, 2000<B></B></FONT> <BR><B><FONT
face=Arial
size=2>
Jam is key ingredient for jelling performance preserves</FONT></B> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
Overnight, the Japanese market hit a new low for the</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
move, and our futures were pretty quiet. In the wee</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
hours this morning, the futures staged their</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
traditional morning rally and by the time the market</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
opened they were smoking to the upside. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
What great news caused this? No, it wasn't news</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
from the auto industry as Daimler-Chrysler (DCX)</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
announced a loss. It wasn't the Internet, as Priceline</FONT> <BR><FONT
face=Arial
size=2>
(PCLN) pre-announced disappointing results -- that</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
stock was split nearly 2-for-1 the hard way, the fallout</FONT> <BR><FONT
face=Arial
size=2>
from which also put enormous pressure on Yahoo</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
(YHOO). It wasn't a rally in Microsoft (MSFT) based</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
on the Justice Department news, as that stock was</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
down in the early going. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
Buy now, ask questions never. . . The reason for today's early explosion was a
good old</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
end-of-the-quarter "bleep"-it rally, as the boys tried to jam prices higher in
marking up their</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
portfolios. This is so commonplace and so well known, it even gets described on
bubblevision. It's</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
a little bit like what Gretchen Morgenson was talking about in The New York
Times article the</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
other day, how Jonathan Lebed got himself in trouble with the SEC for doing the
same kind of</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
thing that Wall Street analysts and portfolio managers do all the time.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
Granted, this is an old refrain of mine, but there was no reason from any
fundamental standpoint</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
for the explosive rally we saw today other than it was time to mark 'em up. I
guess if I wanted to be</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
courteous I could make the case that the market has been down a bunch and
"pre-announcement</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
season" is over. That's what the bulls would say, but it's quite a reach.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
The initial rally was sold, followed by another rally that was sold. All told,
there were about five</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
rallies followed by sell-offs in the first couple of hours, but we ended up
trading down to the lows of</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
the day. At the lows, the S&P and the Nasdaq 100 were flat. From there,
the</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
never-say-die-mark-'em-up boys proceeded to jam the tape again. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
In about half an hour we saw the Nasdaq 100 explode about 100 points back to the
highs, but the</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
S&Ps didn't quite get there. An enormous amount of energy was expended in
the first few hours.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
Given that so many momentum types own chip stocks, it was not a great shock to
see the Sox</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
index hitching up as the sled dog du jour, up about 3 percent in the first three
hours. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
They shall be redeemed. . . From there we went sideways for awhile and they made
one more</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
push higher, then the market started to leak. The "leaking" was accelerated when
a story passed</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
on Bloomberg that Janus was on pace to report a monthly outflow for the first
time in three years. If</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
a big fund group like Janus experiences outflows, that could potentially change
the psychology. I</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
have been musing that the final-hour selling in the last couple of days looked
like redemptions.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
Folks have long ceased to worry about such things, but at some point we will
feel their force</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
again. When that begins, the market will be under relentless pressure for quite
some time. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
What appears to have happened with Janus's outflows is that the painters had
their hopes</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
dashed and the tape fell apart. There were still some stocks that were green,
and some that were</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
nicely green, but by and large there was far more damage than anyone would have
expected on a</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
mark-up day like today. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
You don't have to tell us twice. . . At about that same time, Dell (DELL)
announced on the tape</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
that it had initiated price cuts of 12 to 47 percent, depending on the product.
That impacted</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
Gateway (GTW) and IBM (IBM), as well. But the biggest disappointment for the
bulls certainly had</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
to be the fact that Microsoft closed right around the $60 level, basically on
its lows for the year,</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
even after getting what it wanted from the Supreme Court yesterday. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
All in all, when one connects the dots and puts a summation sign in front of
today's action, it was</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
net-net very, very ugly and ominous. I don't think I can remember a time when we
had such a brutal</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
jam like we had this morning totally fall apart like it did this afternoon.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
Away from stocks, the euro was both red and green on the day and settled
essentially unchanged.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
Oil also changed its colors during the day and did the same, closing down about
4 cents. Fixed</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
income was under pressure, with the long bond down about half a buck, for
reasons I'm about to</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
describe (which appear to have put a bid in under the precious metals). Gold and
silver were up a</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
percent, plus or minus. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
Please, not in front of the children. . . What, might you ask, could change the
psychology and</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
knock bonds down and metals up? I know this is going to come as a shock to
regular readers, but</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
lo and grab hold, it turns out that -- maybe, just maybe -- the BLS has
understated inflation. In an</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
article in this morning's Washington Post, John Barry, who has long been
considered the source</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
that the Fed uses to ooze information into the marketplace, revealed that
inflation is actually</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
higher than what the BLS has reported. I would like to share a few paragraphs
from this very</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
important article: </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
Consumer price inflation has been slightly higher over the past year than
officially</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
reported because of a calculating glitch at the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
government</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
sources said. . . </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
BLS statisticians discovered the glitch some time ago, but it has taken quite
awhile</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
for them to re-run the mountains of price data collected each month to determine
its</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
impact on the overall index. Government sources did not disclose when the
problem</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
first began to affect the index. . . </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
The current problem involves the agency's effort to assess how much of the
change in</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
an item's price is due to an improvement in its quality -- for example, when the
price of</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
a certain new car is compared with last year's model of the same car.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
If the new model of an item includes improvements, such as when an option on a
new</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
car becomes standard equipment, that is taken into account in deciding how much
of</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
the price increase represents inflation and how much is a quality improvement.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
The error appears to have occurred from accidentally double-counting some</FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
allowance for quality improvements, sources said. [emphasis added] </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
Since there are relatively few quality adjustments for food and energy items,
the</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
upward revision is likely to affect the core portion of the CPI as much as the
overall</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
index. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
Later in the day, the BLS confirmed that changes will be forthcoming. I think
this is going to be a</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
major inflection point, because it will foster a change in psychology as people
realize what a farce</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
the numbers have been. I believe most folks are not aware of the shenanigans
that Jim Grant (and</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
we) have been discussing for some time. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
Folks had expected that the non-fiddled ex food and energy part of inflation
would drop down to</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
the lower level of the core rate. Instead, the core rate is going up to meet the
nonmanipulated food</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
and energy complex is. At the end of the day, it should be a catalyst for people
to open their eyes. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
They must think pi is a real kick in the pants. . . This article points out a
number of things, but</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
most importantly it clearly shows the capricious and subjective nature of the
government's attempt</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
at measuring quality improvements. Calculating these indices out to one decimal
point tells one</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
nothing other than that perhaps some of the people who come up with these
numbers have a</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
sense of humor. It would be reasonable to surmise that whatever forthcoming
change is made to</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
get the numbers "more correct" could easily be wrong as well. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
As we have tried to illustrate in the Inflation Chronicles, there has been a
steady supply of</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
anecdotal evidence to show that inflation is alive and well in the real world.
As we have often</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
remarked, anyone who is sentient knows that the inflation numbers are a joke.
The quality</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
improvements fall under the heading of the "hedonic price deflator," and they
are also the reason</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
that productivity numbers and GDP growth is overstated. Maybe the folks at
GrantsInvestor.com,</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
who have been spearheading the effort to get this out in the open, had a hand in
forcing the</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
government's hand. This is a victory for all of us who would like to see the
inflation statistics at</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
least approach reality. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
Based on a reader's suggestion, we have decided to change the name of the
Inflation Chronicles</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
to the Stagflation Chronicles. We have shared plenty of stories about inflation,
and the last few</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
have really been more about profit and wage squeezes (and with the BLS
announcement its time</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
to "declare victory" on this subject and move on). From here on out, the stories
will be more along</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
the lines of margin squeezes, assuming we have stories to share. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
Stagflation Chronicles. . . Another reader in the medical field sent this story
in about the inflation</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
squeeze related to malpractice insurance: </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
I'm a member of a small surgical specialty group with a fairly low risk surgical
practice.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
Despite our excellent claims history, our malpractice premiums were just hiked
30</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
percent from $10,000 to $13,000 per physician. These become fixed costs, and
the</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
cost is borne by the physician. It's practically impossible to pass these
higher</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
malpractice costs through to the patient because the third party, health
insurance</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
companies reimbursement rates are already set, as well as the patient co-pay.
Costs</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
are rising across all aspects of health care -- get used to it! </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2>--------------------------------------------------------</FONT> </P>
<P><B><FONT face=Arial>Inflation Higher Than Reported
(washingtonpost.com)</FONT></B> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>By John M.
Berry</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Washington Post Staff Writer</FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Wednesday, September 27, 2000; Page E01
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Consumer price inflation has been slightly higher
over the past year than </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>officially reported
because of a calculating glitch at the Bureau of Labor</FONT> <BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>Statistics, government sources said. </FONT><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2> </FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>The bureau is
preparing to revise upward the change over the last year in </FONT><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>its consumer price index, the nation's most closely watched
measure of </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>inflation and the one used by the
government to calculate cost-of-living </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>adjustments in Social Security payments, veterans benefits and federal
</FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>pensions.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2> </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>For the 12-month period ended
last month, consumer prices rose 3.4 </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>percent--partly as a result of surging energy prices--while the core
</FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>CPI, which excludes energy and food items,
rose 2.5 percent.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>The revision, which could be announced before the end
of this week, is </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>likely to result in an
official inflation rate that is higher by about </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>0.1 to 0.3 percentage points for the past 12 months, the sources
said.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>A revision of this magnitude won't please either
Federal Reserve officials </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>or investors,
because to some extent both have been unhappy with the </FONT><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>acceleration this year of both the CPI and the core portion of
the index.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Fed policymakers are widely expected to leave their
target for short-term </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>interest rates
unchanged when they meet next Tuesday, and the revision </FONT><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>probably won't affect that outcome. But it won't be welcome
news for those </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>investors who have begun to
anticipate that the next Fed policy change would </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>be a rate reduction.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>The difference will mean a bigger January increase in
the government benefit </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>payments received by
roughly one in five Americans.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Last year, the Social Security cost-of-living
adjustment was 2.4 percent, </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>which was
determined by the increase in the CPI average for the third quarter
</FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>of 1999 from the average for the third
quarter of 1998. The adjustment </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>boosted the
program's average monthly benefit by $19, to $804.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>That meant that each increase of one-tenth of a
percentage point in the CPI </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>was worth 79
cents a month to an average Social Security beneficiary, or </FONT><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>$9.49 over the course of this year.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>An upward revision in the CPI also will mean a bit
less federal tax revenue, </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>and hence a
slightly smaller budget surplus, because the CPI is used to index
</FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>numerous provisions of the tax code, such as
the size of personal exemptions </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>and the
points at which income tax brackets increase.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>The CPI also is used in the private sector to adjust
for inflation in a </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>variety of ways, including
some rents and labor contracts.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>This will mark a break in the BLS's policy of not
revising the CPI once it </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>has been published
because of the widespread ramifications of such a change </FONT><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>for both the government and private sector.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>When asked, Katharine G. Abraham, commissioner of
labor statistics, declined </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>to comment.
BLS officials notified the White House of the problem earlier </FONT><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>this week.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>BLS statisticians discovered the glitch some time
ago, but it has taken quite </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>a while for them
to rerun the mountains of price data collected each month </FONT><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>to determine its impact on the overall index. Government
sources did not </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>disclose when the problem
first began to affect the index.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>The CPI is compiled from data on the changes in the
prices paid by consumers </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>for a hypothetical
"market basket" of certain goods and services. The current </FONT><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>problem involves the agency's efforts to assess how much of
the change in an </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>item's price is due to an
improvement in its quality--for example, when the </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>price of a certain new car is compared with last year's model of the same
car.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>If the new model of an item includes improvements,
such as when an option on a</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>new car has
become standard equipment, that is taken into account in deciding
</FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>how much of the price increase represents
inflation and how much is a quality </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>improvement.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>The error appears to have occurred from accidentally
double-counting some </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>allowances for quality
improvements, sources said.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Since there are relatively few quality adjustments
for food and energy items, </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>the upward
revision is likely to affect the core portion of the CPI as much
</FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>as the overall index.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Errors occasionally have been detected in the past in
some of the raw data </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>that are used to
calculate the CPI, but apparently they have never been large </FONT><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>enough to affect the overall index.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Economists have debated for years whether the CPI
accurately measures </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>inflation, and whether
the BLS's methodology should be changed. Based on its </FONT><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>own research and recommendations from outside economists, the
BLS has made </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>changes in recent years to
improve the CPI.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Correcting the current error is a technical matter,
and will not change the </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>BLS's overall method
or approach for making quality-improvement allowances.</FONT> </P></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>
|