July 12, 2021

Economic Letter

Do Households Expect Inflation When Commodities Surge?

<i class="fab fa-twitter" aria-hidden="true"></i> Share on twitter
<i class="fab fa-whatsapp" aria-hidden="true"></i> Share on whatsapp
<i class="fab fa-facebook" aria-hidden="true"></i> Share on facebook
<i class="fab fa-linkedin" aria-hidden="true"></i> Share on linkedin
<i class="fas fa-envelope" aria-hidden="true"></i> Share on email
<i class="fab fa-reddit" aria-hidden="true"></i> Share on reddit

Listen to our reports with a personalized podcasts through your Amazon Alexa or Apple devices audio translated into several languages

Originally published on by Federal Reserve Bank San Francisco. Link to original report

( 11 mins)

Reuven Glick, Noah Kouchekinia, Sylvain Leduc, and Zheng Liu

Household surveys indicate that consumers expect higher inflation this year than in recent years, as the U.S. economy rebounds from the deep recession. This has coincided with a surge in commodity prices, as strong demand for goods like gas, food, and construction materials is catching producers with low supplies. Evidence suggests that households respond to commodity price increases by raising their expectations of future inflation. However, since surges in commodity prices are transitory, their effects on inflation expectations—particularly long-term expectations—are modest and short-lived.


Commodity prices have surged since the U.S. economy began recovering from the recession induced by the COVID-19 pandemic last year. For example, since the lowest point of the recession in April 2020, corn prices have doubled, crude oil prices have roughly tripled, and lumber prices have risen nearly fivefold. Some commodity suppliers who made large production cuts during the pandemic were caught off guard by the strength of the recovery, particularly in sectors that proved resilient to the pandemic, such as residential real estate. In several areas, the dearth of materials is translating into substantial production bottlenecks. These supply chain bottlenecks, combined with the rebound in global demand, have resulted in higher commodity prices. The Standard & Poor’s Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (S&P GSCI), a broad measure of commodity prices, has increased more than 60% relative to its trough in April 2020.

For consumers and businesses, the surge in commodity prices is translating into higher retail prices for food in grocery stores, fuel at gas stations, and construction materials in home supply centers. When people experience large price increases for these prominent components of their consumption baskets, they may start to expect higher inflation in the future. Indeed, household inflation expectations have jumped significantly in recent months.

This Economic Letter examines the sensitivity of household inflation expectations to movements in commodity prices. It shows that commodity price inflation has a statistically significant effect on household inflation expectations: as prices rise, so do expectations. However, this sensitivity of inflation expectations to commodity prices has declined steadily since the late 1980s. Our analysis also shows that households view this impact as short-lived: long-term household inflation expectations are much less sensitive to commodity price movements than short-term expectations. This partly reflects that commodity price surges are typically followed by reversals after suppliers ramp up production to meet demand. Therefore, the increases in inflation expectations from commodity price rises tend to be transitory. This was the case, for instance, during the recovery from the Great Recession, when both commodity prices and household inflation expectations jumped and subsequently reversed.

Changes in commodity prices and inflation expectations

Commodity prices are highly volatile, and large price spikes are very common (see Figure 1). For example, in the early 1970s, the S&P GSCI surged over 60% as a result of the oil crisis. We are currently experiencing a similar surge, with the S&P GSCI increasing over 60% through April 2021 compared with a year earlier.

Figure 1
Commodity price inflation

Do Households Expect Inflation When Commodities Surge? 1

Note: Measured as year-over-year log difference in S&P GSCI.

During the same period, household inflation expectations measured by the University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers also jumped, as shown in Figure 2. We focus on household inflation expectations because they are useful in accounting for inflation movements in standard Phillips curve relationships that relate inflation to inflation expectations and measures of economic activity (Coibion, Gorodnichenko, and Kamdar 2018). Moreover, recent studies have shown that household inflation expectations respond more to price changes of frequently bought goods, such as groceries, which are sensitive to commodity price movements (D’Acunto et al. 2021).

Figure 2
Movements in household inflation expectations

Do Households Expect Inflation When Commodities Surge? 2

Figure 2 shows that households expect substantially higher inflation over the next year. The median one-year-ahead expected inflation rate surged from 2.1% in April 2020 to 4.6% in May 2021, before declining modestly in June. Long-term household inflation expectations—the inflation rate expected over the next 5 to 10 years—also increased, although by a much smaller magnitude. The median long-term expected inflation rate rose from 2.5% in April 2020 to 3% in May this year, before easing off a bit in June.

The large increases in commodity prices and expected inflation during the current economic recovery are not unusual. A similar situation occurred in the early stages of the recovery from the Great Recession when commodity prices rose strongly. One-year-ahead inflation expectations reached 4.6% in March 2011, an increase of more than 2 percentage points over six months, while long-term inflation expectations rose 0.5 percentage point to 3.2% over the same period. The Federal Reserve considered the changes to be temporary and did not respond to these movements. However, some central banks reacted to the commodity price increases by preemptively hiking interest rates. Most notably, the European Central Bank (ECB) tightened monetary policy because of concerns that commodity price inflation would have “second-round effects” by raising inflation expectations, which in turn would push up actual inflation. As commodity price inflation eased in late 2011, the ECB quickly reversed course.

Measuring the sensitivity of inflation expectations to commodity prices

To assess the sensitivity of inflation expectations to commodity prices, we examine statistical relationships between measures of household inflation expectations and commodity price inflation using monthly U.S. data. These relationships assume that households react to past commodity price inflation measured by the percent change in the S&P GSCI over the previous 12 months. To account for slow-moving inflation expectations, we allow current expectations to depend on expectations in the previous month. We also include the previous month’s unemployment rate to account for the impact of economic activity on inflation expectations. Similarly, we include the lagged 12-month change in the core consumer price index (CPI), which excludes the volatile food and energy prices from the headline CPI, to capture the impact of past movements in core inflation on household forecasts of future inflation.

Our statistical analysis shows that commodity price inflation has a small positive effect on both short-term and long-term inflation expectations. As shown in the first set of columns in Figure 3, the 63% surge in commodity prices in the 12 months leading up to April 2021 is associated with a modest 0.25 percentage point increase in one-year-ahead inflation expectations, which is about one-tenth of the actual run-up in short-term inflation expectations. The commodity price increase had an even smaller impact on long-term inflation expectations, raising them by only 0.05 percentage point. The lower sensitivity of long-term expectations partly reflects the transitory nature of commodity price movements: surges are typically followed by reversals. Overall, this evidence suggests that commodity price inflation accounts for a small fraction of the recent increases in short-term and long-term household inflation expectations.

Figure 3
Potential effects of commodity prices on expected inflation

Do Households Expect Inflation When Commodities Surge? 3

Note: Recent commodity price increase refers to change from April 2020
through April 2021.

However, the direct effect of commodity price movements on expected inflation may not capture the full effect over time because our estimates indicate that underlying inflation expectations are highly persistent. As a result, an increase in inflation expectations today tends to lead to higher expectations in the future.

Taking into account this persistence and assuming that commodity prices stay at their current levels, we estimate the “cumulative” effect of the recent commodity price increase on expected inflation. The second set of columns in Figure 3 shows that this cumulative effect is much larger, particularly for short-term inflation expectations, with one-year-ahead inflation expectations rising nearly 2 percentage points. However, because commodity prices are highly volatile, with large price increases ultimately followed by large price declines, these cumulative effects are likely to be upper-bound estimates.

Declining sensitivity

The surge in commodity prices and the recent rise in inflation have led to some concerns about repeating the runaway inflation experience of the 1970s and 1980s. Our analysis suggests that the sensitivity of inflation expectations to commodity price inflation was particularly high back then, but it has declined steadily over time.

Figure 4 displays how much the sensitivity of short- and long-term inflation expectations has changed using the available data at each point in time, beginning with a minimum sample of 10 years. For instance, the first point on the red line shows the sensitivity of short-term expectations in January 1988, using data over the 10-year period from January 1978, when the data on one-year-ahead inflation expectations became available, to December 1987. The second point shows the estimate using the sample from January 1978 to January 1988, and so on, with the last point showing the estimated sensitivity using the full sample through the latest data available in May 2021. Similarly, the blue line reports the changing sensitivity of long-term inflation expectations. Since continuous data for long-term inflation expectations start in April 1990, our estimates of the long-term sensitivity begin in April 2001. The shaded areas around each line indicate the accuracy within a 68% range of our estimates.

Figure 4
Declining sensitivity of expected inflation to commodities

Do Households Expect Inflation When Commodities Surge? 4

Note: Data account for lagged unemployment, lagged actual core CPI, and lagged CPI expectations.

We find that the impact of increasing commodity prices on household one-year-ahead inflation expectations in the 1980s was nearly six times as large as it is now. In the early 2000s, the sensitivity of inflation expectations was still more than twice as high as it is today. This means that, if households today were to perceive the current environment as similar to that in the 1980s and 1990s, when inflation expectations were more sensitive to commodity price changes, the current commodity price inflation would lead to much larger increases in inflation expectations than what we estimate using more recent data. In particular, as shown in the third set of columns in Figure 3, the surge in commodity prices since a year ago would have pushed up one-year-ahead inflation expectations by slightly more than 1 percentage point in this case, although the effect on long-term inflation expectations would still be relatively modest.

The lower sensitivity of expectations to commodity prices in recent years can largely be attributed to two factors. First, the structure of the economy has changed. Household spending has shifted from goods to services, which require less commodities to produce, and the commodity content of many goods has also declined. Thus, commodity price inflation has smaller effects on overall inflation and inflation expectations than in the past. Second, the conduct of monetary policy has changed significantly since the 1970s and 1980s. The Federal Reserve’s increased focus on price stability and its success in keeping inflation low have improved the credibility of its policies. As a result, inflation expectations have declined steadily over time and remain well anchored at a low level (see Figure 2). Thus, transitory movements in commodity prices—even large movements like those observed over the past year—are unlikely to move inflation expectations, particularly over the longer term.

Conclusion

Commodity prices have surged since the pandemic trough last year, as the nascent economic recovery turned out to be stronger than anticipated. We present evidence that households raise their inflation expectations following commodity price inflation. However, the sensitivity of inflation expectations to commodity price changes has declined steadily over the past 40 years. Because surges in commodity prices are typically short lived and ultimately reversed, their impact on household inflation expectations tend to be transitory, as was the case during the recovery from the Great Recession.

Reuven Glick is a group vice president in the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

Noah Kouchekinia is a research associate in the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

Sylvain Leduc is director of the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

Zheng Liu is a vice president and director of the Center for Pacific Basin Studies in the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

References

Coibion, Olivier, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, and Rupal Kamdar. 2018. “The Formation of Expectations, Inflation, and the Phillips Curve.” Journal of Economic Literature 56(4), pp. 1,447–1,491.

D’Acunto, Francesco, Malmendier, Ulrike, Juan Ospina, and Michael Weber. 2021. “Exposure to Grocery Prices and Inflation Expectations.” Journal of Political Economy 129(5), pp. 1,615–1,639.

Africa in the news: Energy and climate finance updates, Mozambique’s debt write-off, and US COVID-19 vaccine donation

( 4 mins) Africa proposes expanding and tracking climate finance; Egypt and Greece plan to link electrical grids; South Africa seeks low-cost financing for clean energy
Frustrated with a lack of climate-related funding from wealthy nations, Africa’s lead climate negotiator proposed this week to build a new system to track climate finance contributions by country. Indeed, funding has fallen short of the 2006 agreement to raise $100 billion per year for climate change-related financing by 2020. From the existing pool,  African countries only received 26 percent of the funding in 2016-2019, compared to 43 percent on average by Asian countries. African countries are now pushing to scale up funding tenfold by 2030 for global climate change mitigation and adaptation finance, calling the $100 billion package a political commitment and “not based on the real needs of developing countries to tackle climate change.”

Following the signing of an agreement on October 14, 2021 between Egypt and Greece to construct undersea interconnectors, transmission cables used to link electrical grids between countries, the Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis pledged on Tuesday to connect Egypt with the European Union’s electricity market via an undersea cable network running beneath the Mediterranean Sea. Although formal details of the project have not been released,  Prime Minister Mitsotakis is confident that connecting Egypt’s energy grid to Greece, and ultimately Europe, will promote energy security during times of global turbulence in the energy market and energy diversification.
In related energy news, South Africa continues its search for low-cost financing to develop its clean energy infrastructure and decommission coal-burning power plants. The world’s 12th largest carbon emitter seeks 400 billion rand ($27.6 billion) of electricity infrastructure for its energy transition, earmarking 180 billion rand for cleaner energy technology and 120 billion rand for transmission gear. The rest of the funding will go toward transformers, substations, and electrical distribution technology. With more than 80 percent of South Africa’s electricity generated by burning coal, the state energy company, Eskom, plans to decommission between 8,000 to 12,000 megawatts of coal-derived electricity over the next decade and replace this electrical capacity with other energy sources such as wind, photovoltaic, and natural gas.
Credit Suisse to write off $200 in Mozambican debt after defrauding prosecutors
Regulators announced on Tuesday, October 19, that Credit Suisse will forgive $200 million worth of Mozambican debt as part of a settlement with UK, Swiss, and U.S. authorities due to corruption issues. The regulators alleged that Credit Suisse employees received and paid bribes while they arranged industry loans totaling $1.3 billion. According to U.S. prosecutors, three Credit Suisse bankers, two middlemen, and three Mozambican government officials diverted at least $200 million of the  loans for their private use. The debt write-off is part of a settlement agreement with regulators that includes a $175 million fine to the U.S. Justice Department, a $99 million fine to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and a $200 million fine to Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority. The SEC indicated on Tuesday that the Credit Suisse staff and their intermediaries have been indicted by the U.S, Department of Justice.
On Thursday, October 21, the Budget Monitoring Forum (FMO), an independent public finance organization based in Mozambique, called Credit Suisse’s offer insufficient and instead demanded the “full cancellation of illegal debts.” As of Friday, October 21, Mozambican officials have yet to comment publicly on the debt forgiveness.
US announces COVID-19 vaccine donations for Africa as South Africa rejects Sputnik V
On October 14, U.S. President Biden met with President Kenyatta of Kenya where Biden promised an additional donation of 17 million doses of the Johnson and Johnson (J&J) vaccine to the African Union . Indeed, this announcement is timely as the World Health Organization (WHO) announced in September that in order to fully vaccinate 70 percent of the continent by September 2022, COVID-19 vaccine shipments must increase from 20 million per month to 150 million.
In other related news, South Africa’s drug regulator has rejected the Russian Sputnik V vaccine due to safety concerns. According to the Associated Press, regulators asked the makers of Sputnik V for data proving the vaccine’s safety but their request was not suitably addressed. Sputnik V is currently being reviewed for authorization by WHO and the European Medicines Agency. Both AstraZeneca and J&J have been approved in South Africa.

Read More »

Greater transparency for development finance institutions

( 2 mins) Development finance is critical to global development, including for the achievement of the sustainable development goals, low-income countries’ recovery from the pandemic, and the $100 billion commitment for climate finance. But to know whether finance and development goals are being met—and to keep institutions on track—we need better information on financial flows and how they impact development. Despite the scale of financing by development finance institutions (DFIs), few share ​detailed information on their private sector portfolios. This makes it difficult to assess their development impact and to foster learning within this space. Greater transparency will lay the foundation for more informed decisionmaking, more accountability, and better allocation of resources.
On November 3, the Center for Sustainable Development at Brookings will host a virtual event to create space for DFIs, civil society organizations, and the private sector to engage with key issues on DFI transparency. As part of the event, Publish What You Fund will launch the report “Advancing DFI Transparency – The rationale and roadmap for better impact, accountability, and markets.” A panel will discuss recommendations for greater global disclosure and how donors can better engage with national stakeholders and improve the publication of their development financing. The event will introduce a new DFI Transparency Tool.
Questions for the panelists may be submitted with registration. During the live event, the audience may submit questions by emailing [email protected] or by using the Twitter hashtag #DFItransparency. 

Read More »

Financial risk assessment and management in times of compounding climate and pandemic shocks

( 6 mins) More than 4 million people have died from COVID-19, and many others face long-lasting effects on their lives and livelihoods. While the full social, economic, and financial implications of COVID-19 are yet to be seen, millions have lost their jobs, and incomes in many countries have sharply declined. This raises concerns about sovereign debt sustainability and financial vulnerability in the medium term, particularly in developing countries and emerging markets.

The pandemic diverted the attention from another ongoing crisis: Climate change has affected the lives of more than 130 million people and resulted in over 15,000 deaths since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. Natural hazards such as tropical cyclones, floods, and wildfires are expected to become more frequent and intense in the coming years.
Understanding the economic and financial impacts of compound risks
With worsening climate change, compound risks (e.g., floods and droughts or pandemics and hurricanes hitting the same country shortly thereafter) could be more likely in the future. This should be the main concern for governments and financial supervisors because compound risks could exacerbate social and financial vulnerabilities. For instance, natural hazards destroying socioeconomic infrastructures, such as hospitals, provide a fertile ground for pandemics to spread, thus strengthening the pandemic’s socioeconomic toll and delaying recovery. In countries with limited fiscal space and capacity to respond, compound risk can lead to substantial fiscal impacts and slowed recovery.

The assessment and management of compound risks require a better understanding of how shocks of different nature (e.g., pandemics, climate change) are entering and passing through the economy. Eventually, we need to identify which assets and sectors are most vulnerable yet relevant in shocks’ transmission and amplification, in the economy and finance. This information would support policymakers and financial supervisors, answering the following questions “What are direct and indirect impacts of compound COVID-19 and climate physical risks, and how do they affect socio-economic and financial stability?” “Under which conditions can effective recovery policies be implemented?” “To what extent can countries strengthen their financial resilience to compound risks?”
Fit for purpose tools to assess compound risk
Answering these questions calls for macroeconomic models where heterogeneous agents—such as banks, firms, households, government, and a central bank—interact and adapt their investment and financing behavior, based on available information and on their expectations about the future. Consistently with the real world we live in, agents differ with regard to access to information (for instance, asset managers may have better information about financial market reaction to COVID-19 than car dealers) and risk management tools. Agents endowed with different access to information, preferences, and expectations, may diverge in their risk assessment and management strategies, with implications for the shock recovery.
Compound risk can amplify losses
A recent paper applies such a macroeconomic model to Mexico and shows that when shocks compound, such as the case of COVID-19 and natural disasters, losses could get amplified. Economic impacts are shock dependent, as a hurricane that might affect the supply side first by destroying productive plants and infrastructure differs from COVID-19 that enters as an aggregate demand shock by curbing people’s ability and willingness to spend money. The interplay between supply and demand shocks in the case of compound risk matters for the shock transmission through the economy and thus overall economic, private, and public finance impacts. This amplified impact is captured by the compound risk indicator in Figure 1, which compares GDP impacts of compound risks versus the sum of individually occurring pandemic and climate risk. A value of the indicator higher than 100 signals that the impact of the compound shocks is higher than the impact of the sum of individual shocks. In the case of a compounding strong climate physical shocks with COVID-19, non-linear amplification effects emerge.
Figure 1. Compound risk indicator for Mexico

Source: Dunz et al. 2021.
Drivers of shocks mitigation and amplification
Diverging preferences, expectations, and risk assessment are a main driver of compound shock amplification. Timely governments’ fiscal response is crucial to support the economic recovery and influence economic expectations. However, procyclical banks’ lending can counteract the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus by limiting firms’ recovery investments, creating the conditions for public finance distress (e.g., public debt sustainability). For instance, banks may revise their lending conditions to firms due to the uncertainty about the duration of the crisis, despite government and central banks’ actions (e.g., credit guarantees, recovery investments). By limiting the ability of firms to invest and of households to consume, procyclical lending can trigger persistent and nonlinear macroeconomic effects, such as higher unemployment and lower GDP (Figure 1).
Banks’ lending behavior is thus relevant for the success of government fiscal policies, and for their financial sustainability. Indeed, government’s recovery funds, financed by issuance of debt, are less effective in fostering the economic recovery in presence of credit and labor constraints. Coordination of fiscal and financial policies could help to tackle the complexity of the implications of compound risk, creating the conditions for functioning credit markets, and preserving sovereign debt sustainability.
Insights to build back better
Introducing compound risk considerations in fiscal and financial risk management can help governments and financial authorities build resilience to compounding shocks that could be more likely in the near future. Nevertheless, the assessment of compound risks requires an adaptation of the analytical tools that support policy making. Accounting for adaptive expectations and finance-economy interactions (e.g., bank lending conditions) that affect economic and financial agents’ response (e.g., investment, consumption) in times of crises could improve our understanding of how and why individual and compounding shock impacts might amplify. Such a new generation of macroeconomic models can thus support investors and policy makers in the assessment of risk and in the design of better-informed risk financing strategies. This, in turn, would enable the role of public and private finance in building resilience to compounding climate, pandemic, and other risks, for the benefit of the environment, the economy, and society.

Read More »

Focus – China’s continuing growth slowdown

( < 1 min) China’s era of rapid economic growth dated from 1979 until about a decade ago. Main drivers were: rapid growth in the working-age population; increased participation; employment; longer working hours; and rapid productivity growth. However, over

Read More »

CHINA: Power shortages lead to durable market reforms

( 5 mins) Severe power rationing has led to significant long-term reforms to China’s electricity pricing system that go beyond emergency stop-gap measures. Under the new system, coal-powered generators can pass on higher coal prices to electricity users;

Read More »