Archive

Archive for the ‘Causes of Inflation’ Category

Money and Credit Growth Update

September 19, 2017 Leave a comment

Interested in regular analytical reports? See what we offer at https://store.enduringip.com!

.

It has been a challenging few years to be a monetarist. That isn’t because monetarist predictions have failed, but rather because monetarists have had to spend a lot of time explaining why money velocity has been declining (the answer is: low interest rates) and why “printing money” hasn’t led to runaway inflation (the answer is: inert reserves don’t count, but M2 money growth has been growing between 5%-8% for the last 5 years and that would be too fast for stable prices if velocity was stable).

Money velocity declines when interest rates decline because the demand for real cash balances increases when the opportunity cost of those cash balances is low. That is, if interest rates are at 10%, then you won’t leave cash sitting around idle; it becomes a hot-potato and either gets reinvested in term loans or other assets, or spent. On the other hand if term interest rates are at 0%, then what’s the hurry? The chart below (source: Bloomberg) shows the simple relationship since the early 1990s between 5-year Treasury rates and M2 velocity. This is not a mystery – it has been a critical part of monetarist theory since the 1970s.

You can see that there is a modest conundrum, since interest rates bottomed a couple of years ago but money velocity has continued to sag. I don’t see this as a major mystery; it makes sense to me that there could be some nonlinearities in this relationship near and below the 0% level that we just don’t have enough data to resolve. These nonlinearities have certainly made forecasting more difficult and led generally to forecasts that were modestly too high compared with actual inflation outturns. Again, there’s no mystery about why the forecast misses – the mystery is why money velocity has remained low while interest rates have bounced (we believe economic policy uncertainty has led people to hold somewhat higher real cash balances than they otherwise would, but that’s just a hypothesis). At some point, higher interest rates will snap money velocity back as it gets too ‘expensive’ to leave cash balances sitting around. But this hasn’t happened yet.

Meanwhile, money growth has been slowing. It is still rising faster than 5% per annum, which means that if money velocity was stable and potential GDP growth is 2.5% then we would see the GDP Deflator rising at 2.5%. So money growth is still a bit too fast, unless money velocity is going to decline forever. But it is better at 5% than at 8%, to be sure.

Credit growth has also been slowing, as the chart below (source: Federal Reserve) shows.

Now, regardless of what you read credit growth has essentially no relation to money velocity. Obviously, credit growth has been fairly rapid – as money velocity continued to sag – and is now slowing – as money velocity has continued to sag. It is moderately better connected to M2 growth, so it tends to reinforce the notion that money growth is slowing somewhat, but people who are saying that velocity will continue to slow because banks are slowing loan growth need to explain why rapid growth didn’t lead to velocity acceleration. One-way relationships in economics are pretty rare.

I doubt very seriously that M2 growth is about to drop off a cliff. The Fed’s rate hikes and any balance sheet reduction is not going to affect money supply growth while bank reserves are still “abundant,” to use the Fed’s phrase. Banks are neither capital nor reserve-constrained at the moment, so a decline in credit growth is either coming from the supply side as banks voluntarily reduce loan growth perhaps because credit quality is diminishing, or it is demand side as borrowers are not seeing the growth opportunities that require financing. Money growth is still, and always, something to keep an eye on. But, just as changes in velocity dominated changes in money growth when velocity was falling, velocity changes will dominate changes in money growth when (if?) money velocity starts to rise. As the first chart above shows, velocity when interest rates were “normal” was around 1.8 or higher. I invite you to go to the calculator on the Enduring Investments website and play around using a starting money velocity of 1.43 to see what sort of money supply contraction is required to keep inflation low, if velocity returns to 1.80 over some period of time.

And then, realize that M2 has not declined on a y/y basis as far back as the Fed has records on FRED (about 1960). It seems unlikely to do so now. This leaves few low-inflation exit paths as long as money velocity isn’t permanently dead.

I think the decline in credit growth has implications, but they are mainly implications for growth and not for inflation. Along with the weakness that is starting to be seen in some other areas of the economy (e.g. autos, until the hurricanes caused some “forced replacement”), I think this could be seen as a harbinger of a potential recession in 2018.

Advertisements
Categories: Causes of Inflation Tags: ,

Some Effects on Inflation from Harvey and Irma

September 11, 2017 3 comments

It has been a rough few weeks. First, Hurricane Harvey drenched Houston and south Texas with feet of rain, turning millions into temporary refugees and tens of thousands of them into longer-term refugees as 40,000 homes were destroyed along with a million automobiles. Then, Hurricane Irma battered Miami and Tampa Bay, which is a rare feat, and seems likely to make it the fourth most-damaging hurricane in nominal dollar terms in US history (behind Katrina, Sandy, and Harvey).

And of course, there’s the memorial of September 11th. I once thought that this day would someday become less raw, but remarkably the passage of time has not applied the usual salve in this case. I don’t know why. But the terrorist attacks of that day no longer affect the markets, so we nod and somberly reflect, and move on.

But those other two events will have an impact on markets and on data. Interestingly, the initial response to Irma was a strong rally in equity markets, as the damage was not as great as originally feared – perhaps $50bln, rather than $250bln, in damages. Aside from the human toll, whose value is beyond accounting, this is potentially a large figure for insurance companies and owners of catastrophe bonds (or what is left of them) but a mere scratch on the GDP of the nation as a whole. The total cost of the two hurricanes will be something in the neighborhood of 1% of GDP – although very unevenly distributed.

It is de rigeur in times like these to point out that GDP will increase over time with the expenditure of rebuilding, but of course the nation is not better off and so this is not good for the economy. More thoughtful models note that the national accounts gain that 1% back over the next few years, but local production from the affected areas is at least temporarily reduced so that the net effect is actually somewhat negative over the next several years. The net effect overall is small…but very unevenly distributed.

Some of the upward inflation pressure from the hurricanes comes from the additional pressure in commodities markets. Demand for steel and wood are likely to be elevated as these areas rebuild. For a short time, there will be higher prices for these things locally, and for gasoline, due to the difficulty of delivery to the affected communities. The additional demand might even cause some marginal pressure in commodities markets for industrial metals (e.g.). But in the longer-term there will be no shortage of these items because these goods are bought and sold on international markets and are easily delivered to ports in Houston, Miami, and Tampa Bay. It just takes some time to get the logistics train running. But the uneven distribution of the damage will matter in other ways. For example, there is no way to take a surplus of shelter in one area of the country and move it to another area (mobile homes excepted). Those 40,000 homes in Texas and thousands of others in Florida will need to be rebuilt in situ. Many others will need significant repairs to be nominally habitable. This will not happen overnight, which means that there is an abrupt shelter shortage in Houston and in Florida, and this can be expected to affect inflation.

It is very hard to assess just how much shelter inflation can be expected to follow from these storms. There aren’t many major hurricanes, and for each data point there are lots of other effects that get entangled so that my thoughts here are clearly speculative. But consider the chart below (Source: BLS), which shows Houston-area Shelter CPI (year/year) and compares it to the national Shelter CPI.

In September 2008, when Hurricane Ike hit Texas, housing prices nationally were already decelerating. They had remained elevated in Houston up to that point – thanks in part to $120/bbl oil – but probably would have rolled over almost immediately when the global financial crisis smashed energy markets along with housing markets. Yet, in Houston home prices actually accelerated over the next year before finally declining in late 2009. This is likely to be a side-effect of Ike, and I think we will see similar effects in the cost of shelter in Houston, Miami, and Tampa Bay this time too. This will likely provide a small upward lift to national Shelter prices and hence core CPI over the next year.

The other way that the hurricanes will help push core CPI higher is by helping to alleviate the recent pressure on motor vehicle prices. As the chart below (Source: BLS) shows, new and used vehicle inflation has not been a significant contributor to inflation since early 2012, thanks partly to years of channel-stuffing by manufacturers offering 0% financing along with great lease terms for those who don’t want to buy.

But consider late 2009. The “Cash for Clunkers” program, which took effect in mid-2009, provided cash rebates for consumers to swap used cars for new cars. While largely considered a failure as a stimulus plan, it did produce a sharp increase in motor vehicle prices overall. Prior to C4C, motor vehicle prices were stagnant; by the program’s end prices were rising and they kept rising for some time, at a rate of about 5% per annum between late 2009 and late 2010 – about 4% faster than core inflation at the time. Cash-for-Clunkers took about 700,000 cars off the road. Harvey is taking out about a million. Though those are all in Texas cars, unlike houses, are mobile and surplus inventories will surely be shipped southward with alacrity.

I don’t know why this is a bullish thing for the equity market. But I understand why inflation swaps are at three-month highs and headed higher.

.

Interested in regular analytical reports? See what we offer at https://store.enduringip.com!

Some Further (Minor) Thoughts on the Phillips Curve

September 6, 2017 3 comments

Before I begin, let me say that if you haven’t read yesterday’s article, please do because it represents the important argument: the Phillips Curve doesn’t need rehabilitating, because it is working fine. In fact, I would argue that the Phillips Curve – relating wages to unemployment – is a remarkably accurate economic model prediction. The key chart from that article I reproduce here, but the article (which is brief) is worth reading.

Following my publication of that article, I had a few more thoughts that are worth discussing on this topic.

The first is historical. It’s incredibly frustrating to read article after article incorrectly stating what the Phillips Curve is supposed to relate. Of course one writer learns from another writer until what is incorrect becomes ‘common knowledge.’ I was fortunate in that, 30 years ago, I had excellent Economics professors at Trinity University in San Antonio, and I was reflecting on that fact when I said to myself “I wonder if Samuelson had it right?”

So I dug out my copy of Economics by Samuelson and Nordhaus (the best-selling textbook of all time, I believe, and the de rigeur Intro to Economics textbook for generations of economists). My copy is the 12th Edition, so perhaps they have corrected this since then…but on page 247, there it is – the Phillips Curve illustrated as a “tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.” Maybe that is where this error really propagated – with a Nobel Prize-winning economist making an error in his incredibly widely-read text! Interestingly, the authors don’t reference the original Phillips work, but refer to “writers in the 1960s” who made that connection, so to be fair to Samuelson and Nordhaus they were possibly already repeating an error that had been made even earlier.

My second point is artistic. In yesterday’s article, I said “The Phillips Curve…simply says that when labor is in short supply, its price goes up. In other words: labor, like everything else, is traded in the context of supply and demand,…” But students of economics will note that the Phillips Curve seems to obfuscate this relationship, because it is sloping the wrong way for a supply curve – which should slope up and to the right rather than down and to the right. This can be remedied by expressing the x-axis of the Phillips Curve differently – making it the quantity of labor demanded rather than the quantity of labor not demanded…which is what the unemployment rate is. So the plot of wage inflation as a function of the Employment Rate (as opposed to the Unemployment Rate) has the expected shape of a supply curve. More labor is supplied when the prices rise.

Again, this is nuance and not a really important point unless you want your economics to be pretty.

My third point, though, is important. One member of the bow-tied fraternity of Ph.D. economists told me through a friend that “the Phillips Curve has evolved to the relationship between Unemployment and general prices, not simply wages.” I am skeptical of any “evolution” that causes the offspring to be worse-adapted to the environment, but moreover I would argue that whoever led this “evolution” (and as I said above, it looks like it happened in the 1960s) didn’t really understand the way the economy (and in particular, business) works.

There is every reason to think that wages should be tied to available labor supply because one is the price of the other. That’s Microeconomics 101. But if unemployment is going to be a good indicator of generalized price inflation too, then it means that prices in the economy are essentially set as the price of the labor input plus a spread for profit. That is not at all how prices are set. Picture the businessperson deciding how to set prices. According to the “evolved Phillips Curve” understanding, this business owner looks at the wages he/she is paying and then sets the price of the product. But that’s crazy. A business owner considers labor as one input, as well as all of the other inputs, improvements in productivity in producing this good or service in question, competitive pressures, and the general state of the national and local economy. It would be incredible if all of these factors canceled out except for wage inflation, wouldn’t it? So in short, while I would expect that unemployment might have some explanatory power for inflation, I wouldn’t expect that explanatory power to be very strong. And, in fact, it isn’t. (But this isn’t new – it never has had any power.)

.

Come see our new store at https://store.enduringip.com!

The Phillips Curve is Working Just Fine, Thanks

September 5, 2017 1 comment

I must say that it is discouraging how often I have to write about the Phillips Curve.

The Phillips Curve is a very simple idea and a very powerful model. It simply says that when labor is in short supply, its price goes up. In other words: labor, like everything else, is traded in the context of supply and demand, and the price is sensitive to the balance of supply and demand.

Somewhere along the line, people decided that what Phillips really meant was that low unemployment caused consumer price inflation. It turns out that doesn’t really work (see chart, source BLS, showing unemployment versus CPI since 1997).

Accordingly, since the Phillips Curve is “broken,” lots of work has been done to resurrect it by “augmenting” it with expectations. This also does not work, although if you add enough variables to any model you will eventually get a decent fit.

And so here we are, with Federal Reserve officials and blue-chip economists alike bemoaning that the Fed has “only one model, and it’s broken,” when it never really worked in the first place. (Incidentally, the monetary model that relates money and velocity (via interest rates) to the price level works quite well, but apparently they haven’t gotten around to rediscovering monetarism at the Fed).

But the problem is not in our stars, but in ourselves. There is nothing wrong with the Phillips Curve. The title of William Phillips’ original paper is “The Relation between Unemployment and the Rate of Change of Money Wage Rates in the United Kingdom, 1861-1957.” Note that there is nothing in that title about consumer inflation! Here is the actual Phillips Curve in the US over the last 20 years, relating the Unemployment Rate to wages 9 months later.

The trendline here is a simple power function and actually resembles the shape of Phillips’ original curve. The R-squared of 0.91, I think, sufficiently rehabilitates Phillips. Don’t you?

I haven’t done anything tricky here. The Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker is a relevant measure of wages which tracks the change in the wages of continuously-employed persons, and so avoids composition effects such as the fact that when unemployment drops, lower-quality workers (who earn lower wages) are the last to be hired. The 9-month lag is a reasonable response time for employers to respond to labor conditions when they are changing rapidly such as in 2009…but even with no lag, the R-squared is still 0.73 or so, despite the rapid changes in the Unemployment Rate in 2008-09.

So let Phillips rest in peace with his considerable contribution in place. Blame the lack of inflation on someone else.

.

Come see our new store at https://store.enduringip.com!

Two Disturbing Trends

July 27, 2017 2 comments

Note: We are currently experimenting with offering daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly analytical reports and chart packages. While we work though the kinks of mechanizing the generation and distribution of these reports, and begin to clean them up and improve their appearance, we are distributing them for free. You can sign up for a ‘free trial’ of sorts here.


Today I want to mention two disturbing trends – one of which may have some minor implications for inflation.

The first is the six-month downtrend in the US Dollar (see chart, source Bloomberg).

I’ve included the last several years’ worth of pricing for the broad trade-weighted dollar so as to help avoid any alarmist conclusions. While the trade-weighted dollar is down more than 7% since the beginning of 2017, it is unchanged on a trailing-two-year basis and still quite a bit above the level of three years ago. Moreover, as I’ve mentioned before – when the question concerned the effect of the dollar’s rise on inflation – the dollar doesn’t have a huge impact on US inflation. The US economy is much more closed than, for example, the economies of the Eurozone, the UK, or Switzerland – while the US is a major trade partner for virtually every country in the world, exports and imports as a percentage of GDP are less important than they are for most other countries in the world. Consequently, while movements in currency pairs will cause the declining currency to absorb more of the joint inflationary impulse of the two countries, the effect is fairly small in the US. A 15% dollar appreciation over a two-year period is associated with roughly a 1% deflation in core goods, nine months later, which is close to where core goods inflation has been (actually between 0 and -0.8% for the last few years). Core goods themselves are only about ¼ of core inflation overall. Since the dollar’s appreciation or depreciation has almost no discernable effect on core services a 15% dollar appreciation over two years only nudges core CPI down 0.25%.

So the effect is not large. However, it’s worth noting when the two-year rate of change goes from +16% (which it was one year ago) to 0%. This should start to add incrementally to core goods inflation, and provide a small upward lift to core inflation over the next year or so. But that assumes the dollar does not continue to slide. Continued dollar weakness might be attributed to the US political situation, but it isn’t as if most of our major trading partners are experiencing striking political stability (UK? Europe?). But dollar weakness could also be associated with a reversal in the relative hawkishness of the US Fed compared to other global central banks.

The run-up in the dollar corresponded with the end of Quantitative Easing in the US in 2014, combined with the continuation of QE (and more to the point, LSAP) in Europe and Japan. As hard as it is to think of Janet Yellen as being a hawk, on a global, relative basis her Fed was comparatively hawkish and this helped push the dollar higher.

Which brings us to the second disturbing trend, which may help to explain why the dollar is weakening: commercial bank credit growth has slowed markedly over the last year. The chart below (Source: Enduring Investments) shows the year-over-year change in commercial bank credit, based on data reported by the Federal Reserve.

The current y/y rate of credit growth, at 3.4%, is a number much more consistent with recession than with expansion as the chart above illustrates. To be sure, it is hard to see many overt signs of weakness in the domestic economy, although auto sales have been weakening (see chart, source Bloomberg) and they can sometimes be an early harbinger of economic difficulties.

It is also worth noting that credit growth hasn’t translated into slower money growth – M2 is still rising at 6% per year – so there is not an implication of slower inflation from the deceleration in corporate credit (at least, so far). But, between the suggestion the dollar is making that Federal Reserve policy may not be as hawkish going forward as the market had assumed, and the interesting and possibly disturbing sign from slowing growth in corporate credit, I’m starting to become alert for other early signs of recession.

Of course, the dollar’s slide might instead indicate that the ECB and/or BOJ are about to become less dovish, more rapidly than the market had expected. While core Euro inflation has been a little more buoyant than many had expected (1.1% in the last release), it seems unlikely to drastically change Draghi’s course. However, I will keep an open mind on that point. I’m not saying a recession is imminent; I’m just saying that I’m starting to watch more carefully.

The Internet Has Not Killed, and Will Not Kill, Inflation

June 21, 2017 3 comments

Every few years or so, this story goes around to great acclaim: inflation is dead, killed by the internet. Recently, we have been hearing this story again, quite loudly. The purchase of Whole Foods by Amazon helped bring commentaries like these to the fore:

Credit Suisse’s Varnholt Says Internet Killed Inflation” (Bloomberg)

Low U.S. Inflation? It’s Your Phone: BlackRock Bond Manager” (New York Times)

Amazon Deal for Whole Foods Casts Doubt on Fed’s 2% Inflation Goal” (Barron’s)

And the list goes on and on. These are some of the more-reputable outlets, and they simply misunderstand the whole phenomenon. This isn’t unusual; almost no one really understands inflation, partly because almost no one these days actually studies something that most people presume isn’t worth understanding. (But pardon my ranting digression.)

The internet has not killed, and will not kill, inflation.

In the late 1990s, the internet was having a much greater relative impact. We went from having essentially zero internet in 1995, to a vast array of businesses in 1999 – most of whom were busy transferring money from capital markets to consumers, by raising equity investments which were then use to subsidize money-losing businesses (see especially: Amazon). And inflation? Core CPI in 1999 was 1.9% (Median CPI was 2.03%).

“But there’s more internet now than there was then!” runs the natural objection. Yes, and the internet was dramatically more impactful in 2001 than it was in 1999. Indeed, as the penetration of the internet economy exploded further despite the recession of 2000-2001, core inflation rose to 2.8% (Median CPI topped out at 3.33%) by late 2001.

There is always more innovation happening, whether it’s the 1940s or the 2010s. Innovation is a relatively steady process on the economy as a whole, but very dramatic on parts of the economy – and we tend to fixate on these parts. But there is no evidence that Uber is any more transformative now than Amazon was in the late 1990s. No evidence that Amazon now is any more transformative than just-in-time manufacturing was in the 1980s (in the US). And so on.

“But the internet and mobile technology pervades more of society!” Really? More of society than the J-I-T manufacturing innovation? More of society than airlines and telephones, both of which were de-regulated/de-monopolized in the 1980s? More of society than personal computers did in the 1990s? We all like to think we are living in unique times full of wonder and groundbreaking innovation. But here’s the thing: we always are.

“But Amazon bought Whole Foods and disrupted the whole food industry! How can you be more pervasive than food?” It remains to be seen whether Amazon is able to do what Webvan and FreshDirect and other food delivery services have been unable to do, and that is to remake the entire delivery chain for food at home. But let’s suppose this is true. Food at home is only 7.9% of the consumption basket, which is arguably less than the part of society that Amazon has already reorganized. Moreover, it’s a highly competitive part of society, with margins that are already pretty thin. How much fat is there to be cut out by Amazon’s efficiency? Some, presumably. But after Amazon makes some kind of profit on this improvement, how much of a decline in food prices could we see? Five percent, over five years? 10%? If Amazon’s “internetification” of the food-at-home industry resulted in a 10% decline in prices of everything we buy at the grocery store, over five years, that 2% per year would knock a whopping 0.16% off of headline inflation. Be still, my heart.

“In any event, this signals that competition is getting ever-more-aggressive.” No doubt, though it is ever so. But here is the big confusion that goes beyond all of the objections I’ve previously enumerated: microeconomic effects cause changes in relative prices; macroeconomics is responsible for changes in the overall price level. Competitive pressures in grocery may keep food prices down 10% relative to price increases in the rest of the economy. But suppose the money supply doubles, and all prices rise 100%, but food prices only rise 90%. Then you have your 10% relative deflation but prices overall still rose by a lot. If the governments of the world flood economies with money, no amount of competition will keep prices from rising. This is why there wasn’t deflation in 2010, despite a massive economic contraction in the global financial crisis and concomitant cutthroat competition for scarce customers in many industries.

So inflation isn’t dead, and neither is this myth. It will come back again in a few years – I am sure of it.

Housing Disinflation Isn’t Happening Yet

June 19, 2017 8 comments

Before everyone gets too animated about the decline in core inflation, with calls for central banks to put the brakes on rate normalization, let’s realize that the main drivers of lower inflation over the last few months – zero rise in core CPI over three months! – are not sustainable. I’ve written previously about the telecommunications-inflation glitch that is a one-off effect. Wireless telephone services fell -1.38% month-over-month in February (not seasonally adjusted), -6.94% in March, and -1.73% in April. In May, the decline was -0.06%. Here is a chart, courtesy of Bloomberg, showing the year-to-date percentage declines for the last decade. The three lines at top show the high, average, and low change over the prior decade, so you can see the general deflationary trend in wireless telecom services and the historical outliers in both directions. The orange line is the year-to-date percentage change. Again, the point here is that we cannot expect this component of inflation to deliver a similar drag in the future.

The other main drag comes from a less-dramatic decline in a much-larger component: Owners’ Equivalent Rent. In this month’s CPI tweetstorm, I pointed out that this decline is mostly just returning the OER trend to something closer to our model (see chart below), but many observers (who don’t have such a model) have seen this as a precursor to a more-significant decline in rents.

This is actually a much more-important question than the dramatic, and easy-to-diagnose, issue of wireless telecommunications, because OER is a ponderous category. You can’t get high inflation without OER rising, and you can’t get deflation or even significant disinflation without OER declining. It’s just too big. So what are the prospects for OER rolling over?

Here are two reasons that I think it’s very unlikely that this is a precursor to a significant decline in housing inflation.

First, while I understand that rent increases in some parts of the country are moderating, they are always moderating somewhere in the country. Owners’ Equivalent Rent tends to parallel primary rents (“Rent of Primary Residence,” which measures the actual price of a rental unit as opposed to implied rent of an owner-occupied dwelling) reasonably well, and when home prices are rising it tends to imply that rents – as the price of a substitute, at least for the consumption part of home prices – are also rising. (A house is both an investment asset and a consumption good, and the BLS’s method for separating these two components of a home recognizes that the consumption component should look a lot like the substitute). And the fact is that Primary Rents are not (yet?) decelerating much (see chart, source Bloomberg).

Yes, I understand and agree that home prices are already too high to be sustainable in the long run. Either incomes need to outpace home prices for a while, or home prices need to decline again, or we need to become accustomed to housing becoming a permanently larger part of our consumption and asset mix (see chart, source Enduring Investments).

But is that going to happen? Well, here are two charts that should make you somewhat skeptical that at least on the supply side we are about to see a decline in home prices. First, here is the index of Housing Starts, which last month took a nasty drop. Even without the nasty drop, though, notice that the level of starts was not only far below the level of the last few peaks in the housing market, but actually not far above the troughs reached in the recessions of the mid-1970s, early 1980s, and early 1990s. The only reason the current level of starts looks high is because homebuilders basically stopped building for a few years after the housing bubble.

Homebuilders stopped building because there was suddenly plenty of inventory on the market! In the immediate aftermath of the bubble, the homes that were available for sale were often distressed sellers and as prices rose, more and more of the so-called “shadow inventory” (people who wanted to sell, but were now underwater and couldn’t sell) was freed. This kept a lid on overall housing starts, but the net effect is that even now, when most of that shadow inventory has presumably been liquidated (a decade after the bubble and at new price highs), the inventory of existing homes available for sale has become and has remained quite low (see chart, source Bloomberg).

The supply side, then, doesn’t seem to offer much cause to expect home prices to moderate, even if their prices are relatively high. I’d want to see an overreaction of builders, adding to supply, before I’d worry too much about another bust, and we haven’t seen that yet. So we have to turn to the demand side if we expect home prices to decline. On that side of the coin, there are two arguments I sometimes hear: 1) household formation in the era of the Millennial is low, or 2) households don’t buy as much housing as they used to.

There is no evidence that household formation has slowed in recent years. As the chart below (source Bloomberg) shows, household formation has been rising since 2009 or so, and is back in line with long-term trends. Millennials may have weird notions of home life (I don’t judge!), but they still form households of their own.

As for the second point there…notice that I phrased the question as whether Millennials are buying less housing, rather than as buying fewer homes. I think it’s plausible to suggest that Millennials might demand fewer homes to buy, but it’s hard to imagine that they’re neither going to rent nor buy homes – and if they do either, they are demanding shelter as a consumption item. It just becomes a question of whether they’re demanding rental housing or owned housing.

The upshot of this is that there’s no sign yet of a true ebbing in housing/rental inflation. And until there is, there’s scant need to fear a disinflationary trend taking hold.

%d bloggers like this: