It’s The Oil, Stupid

What matters from here, of course, is the outlook for inflation. Clients tell me that strategists fall into one of two camps – those who believe faster wage growth and the revival of the Phillips Curve is just around the corner, and those who have completely given up: they see no reason to look for higher inflation and they therefore have no reason to expect the range in bond yields to break. The ranks of the latter camp have grown dangerously large and this is now the consensus view.

That’s from SocGen’s Kit Juckes, and the “dangerously large” bit suggests a lot of folks may end up getting caught behind the curve (figuratively and literally in this case), a scenario which Juckes’ colleague Albert Edwards believes might ultimately translate into a nasty correction in equities. You can read more on that here.

But if you’re Deutsche Bank, you’re not buying the idea that there’s a real-wage growth “puzzle.” Because if you’re Deutsche Bank, what you’ve done is corrected for an improperly measured unemployment gap. I’m not going to bore you with that, but suffice to say the bank thinks the unemployment rate is not the best way to measure slack in the labor market and once you “correct” for that and assume a lag between labor market tightness and an uptick in wage growth, the fit is better.

The interesting part comes when Deutsche takes their modified model (they use the part-time rate with a quarter lead) and deflates it. Have a look at this:


The upshot, from DB, is this: “there is no real-wage puzzle [and] the debate is mostly about the ~30bp decline in inflation expectations.” That, in turn, can pretty plausibly (actually it’s intuitive) be explained by crude. To wit:

This decline can reasonably be attributed to the positive supply shock to oil prices (60%+ decline from mid-14 to mid-16). This interpretation would be consistent with several factors: (a) the timing of the drop in inflation expectations (Q1-15), (b) the fact that neither the predicted end of cycle nor the expected pick-up in inflation occurred and (c) the relative outperformance of Europe (which benefits more than the US).

1 2
View single page >> |
How did you like this article? Let us know so we can better customize your reading experience. Users' ratings are only visible to themselves.


Leave a comment to automatically be entered into our contest to win a free Echo Show.
Gary Anderson 1 year ago Contributor's comment

You are assuming labor is strong. But what if labor is weak? What if capitalism is weakening the wealth of the labor force? I don't see that discussed at all.

The Heisenberg Report 1 year ago Author's comment

that isn't relevant to this discussion and it assumes nothing of the sort.

on the bright side, if you want to read about that topic, I can point you to one of the best bloggers on the internet who writes beautifully on late stage capitalism. check this out:

Gary Anderson 1 year ago Contributor's comment

How can DB say this: “a positive supply shock does not generate self-reinforcing dynamics of weaker growth and lower inflation,”? Wasn't the Great Recession based upon the decline of asset values, both in oil and in housing?

Thanks for the link, by the way.