WEBVTT - Chief Economist at Wolfe Research Stephanie Roth Talks November US CPI Report

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:08.680
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. Stephanie Roth walks in

0:00:09.160 --> 0:00:11.160
<v Speaker 1>and it's really wicked cold in here, folks.

0:00:11.160 --> 0:00:13.280
<v Speaker 2>I like it that way, And the whole room heats

0:00:13.320 --> 0:00:15.880
<v Speaker 2>up because she's working the terminal shure like nothing.

0:00:16.200 --> 0:00:20.040
<v Speaker 1>What do you see over there in the terminal, Stepphanie Ross? Oh,

0:00:20.079 --> 0:00:21.920
<v Speaker 1>this inflation report? This shock?

0:00:23.000 --> 0:00:25.720
<v Speaker 3>I certainly, it certainly is a shock. I think the

0:00:25.760 --> 0:00:27.720
<v Speaker 3>main thing that we have to remember is there is

0:00:27.800 --> 0:00:29.800
<v Speaker 3>a lot of error in this report, so I would

0:00:29.800 --> 0:00:32.240
<v Speaker 3>not take much away from this. A key thing that

0:00:31.960 --> 0:00:34.599
<v Speaker 3>there's an issue with in the sense that when they're

0:00:34.640 --> 0:00:39.120
<v Speaker 3>sampling the data specifically around November, that the survey period

0:00:39.159 --> 0:00:41.640
<v Speaker 3>was condensed until later in the month when you typically

0:00:41.680 --> 0:00:45.200
<v Speaker 3>have significant holiday discounting, and when we spoke with BOS,

0:00:45.240 --> 0:00:47.440
<v Speaker 3>they said they're not doing anything to adjust those seasonals,

0:00:47.840 --> 0:00:51.680
<v Speaker 3>so that automatically makes the data artificially weak and we're

0:00:51.680 --> 0:00:53.360
<v Speaker 3>probably going to see a bounce back in December.

0:00:53.840 --> 0:00:56.400
<v Speaker 4>Is there a trend wee can takeaway from here that, boy,

0:00:56.440 --> 0:00:59.720
<v Speaker 4>it's at least inflation is not going up from here?

0:00:59.760 --> 0:01:02.200
<v Speaker 4>Is that fair takeaway? Maybe it's not cooling as much

0:01:02.240 --> 0:01:04.960
<v Speaker 4>as these numbers might suggest, but it doesn't appear to

0:01:05.040 --> 0:01:05.440
<v Speaker 4>be rising.

0:01:05.680 --> 0:01:06.800
<v Speaker 3>I think that's entirely fair.

0:01:06.880 --> 0:01:07.160
<v Speaker 1>Okay.

0:01:07.480 --> 0:01:11.000
<v Speaker 3>There was this concern that around the holiday season companies

0:01:11.040 --> 0:01:13.840
<v Speaker 3>wouldn't really do the typical discounting that they usually do

0:01:13.920 --> 0:01:16.440
<v Speaker 3>because of the tariffs. That doesn't appear to be the case.

0:01:16.680 --> 0:01:18.960
<v Speaker 3>And we knew this heading into the data print because

0:01:19.000 --> 0:01:21.480
<v Speaker 3>if you looked at a number of different indicators that

0:01:21.560 --> 0:01:24.280
<v Speaker 3>survey the company is ahead of the holiday season, it

0:01:24.319 --> 0:01:28.280
<v Speaker 3>showed a normal holiday discounting year. So it doesn't appear

0:01:28.360 --> 0:01:31.800
<v Speaker 3>like there was this, you know, lapse in discounting just

0:01:31.840 --> 0:01:35.520
<v Speaker 3>because of tariffs. In fact, it was a typical year

0:01:35.560 --> 0:01:37.800
<v Speaker 3>for discounting. And then on top of that you have

0:01:37.959 --> 0:01:40.200
<v Speaker 3>some of the issues within the data because of the

0:01:40.200 --> 0:01:40.880
<v Speaker 3>government shutdown.

0:01:41.200 --> 0:01:44.240
<v Speaker 2>So Myron's been out here, Governor Myron, We've got a

0:01:44.280 --> 0:01:46.840
<v Speaker 2>lower rates, a whole bunch of other people. There's been

0:01:46.840 --> 0:01:50.560
<v Speaker 2>a clear tendency within Bloomberg's surveillance of people looking at

0:01:50.560 --> 0:01:54.840
<v Speaker 2>a disinflationary tendency. Is it a January tendency or is

0:01:54.840 --> 0:01:57.440
<v Speaker 2>it a FED meeting waiting out Midsummer?

0:01:58.880 --> 0:02:01.640
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I mean, I think, I think, I think what

0:02:01.680 --> 0:02:04.040
<v Speaker 3>we'll see is inflation will bounce back in the next

0:02:04.080 --> 0:02:07.400
<v Speaker 3>couple of prints, the economy will start to pick up again,

0:02:07.440 --> 0:02:09.680
<v Speaker 3>in which case the Fed's probably going to be on

0:02:09.720 --> 0:02:11.760
<v Speaker 3>hold for much of the beginning of next year.

0:02:13.000 --> 0:02:15.280
<v Speaker 4>So again, so the Fed, I mean if you look

0:02:15.320 --> 0:02:16.800
<v Speaker 4>at so you don't think the Fed's going to look

0:02:16.800 --> 0:02:17.919
<v Speaker 4>at these numbers and say it.

0:02:18.080 --> 0:02:18.919
<v Speaker 1>We've got inflation.

0:02:19.600 --> 0:02:22.640
<v Speaker 4>I sure, hope not sure, because you think that data

0:02:22.680 --> 0:02:24.200
<v Speaker 4>in the next couple of months could in fact show

0:02:24.240 --> 0:02:26.280
<v Speaker 4>a little bit more inflation in the economy.

0:02:27.040 --> 0:02:30.400
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, And we know that there was a there was

0:02:30.440 --> 0:02:32.920
<v Speaker 3>an issue. I mean, they didn't even collect in the

0:02:32.960 --> 0:02:34.560
<v Speaker 3>October CPI for the most part. We know that there

0:02:34.560 --> 0:02:37.919
<v Speaker 3>are issues with the data. So to form a strong

0:02:37.960 --> 0:02:41.799
<v Speaker 3>conclusion about this print in particular as being some massive

0:02:41.840 --> 0:02:45.279
<v Speaker 3>disinflationary period, I think is entirely inaccurate.

0:02:45.560 --> 0:02:47.680
<v Speaker 2>Sevening wrong through this with a Wolf Research and we

0:02:47.720 --> 0:02:50.560
<v Speaker 2>continue here Paul Sweeney and Tom King with Lisa Matteo

0:02:51.080 --> 0:02:51.840
<v Speaker 2>and John Tuckler.

0:02:51.840 --> 0:02:55.639
<v Speaker 1>Good Morning across the Nation's series XM Channel one twenty one,

0:02:55.639 --> 0:02:56.520
<v Speaker 1>Good Morning Canada.

0:02:56.560 --> 0:03:00.400
<v Speaker 2>I mentioned David Rosenberg up in Toronto with a disinflation recall.

0:03:00.720 --> 0:03:05.880
<v Speaker 2>Nailed that into this report on YouTube. Subscribed to Bloomberg Podcasts.

0:03:06.040 --> 0:03:09.960
<v Speaker 2>We're thrilled to finish twenty twenty five strong, humbled by

0:03:09.960 --> 0:03:13.920
<v Speaker 2>the sign ups there each and every day. At Bloomberg Podcast,

0:03:13.960 --> 0:03:15.799
<v Speaker 2>Paul Sweeney was Stephanie rough.

0:03:15.600 --> 0:03:18.680
<v Speaker 4>All Right, so we've got an inflation environment that's at

0:03:18.720 --> 0:03:20.120
<v Speaker 4>least okay at this point.

0:03:20.200 --> 0:03:21.160
<v Speaker 1>How about the labor market.

0:03:21.200 --> 0:03:22.640
<v Speaker 4>What did you take away from some of the labor

0:03:22.720 --> 0:03:23.720
<v Speaker 4>data earlier.

0:03:24.680 --> 0:03:26.240
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I mean so, I think what we're seeing is

0:03:26.360 --> 0:03:28.520
<v Speaker 3>a live market that's holding up a lot better and

0:03:28.560 --> 0:03:31.679
<v Speaker 3>in fact starting to inflect a bit higher from here.

0:03:31.960 --> 0:03:33.800
<v Speaker 3>And I think that's the main conclusion that we should

0:03:33.840 --> 0:03:39.960
<v Speaker 3>take away from the headline jobs numbers. Let me replace

0:03:40.000 --> 0:03:42.040
<v Speaker 3>it the private payrolls numbers. The headline jobs numbers are

0:03:42.040 --> 0:03:45.960
<v Speaker 3>impacted again by not necessarily the government shut down in particular,

0:03:46.000 --> 0:03:49.760
<v Speaker 3>but the the third resignation program which ended at the

0:03:49.840 --> 0:03:52.440
<v Speaker 3>end of September. These are people who took severance package.

0:03:52.440 --> 0:03:54.080
<v Speaker 3>This is not people who lost their jobs. So if

0:03:54.080 --> 0:03:56.040
<v Speaker 3>you look at the private payroll numbers, they were actually

0:03:56.080 --> 0:03:58.480
<v Speaker 3>quite decent. Now we're looking at, you know, a trend

0:03:58.520 --> 0:04:01.240
<v Speaker 3>that's close to in the seventy range, which is really

0:04:01.240 --> 0:04:05.000
<v Speaker 3>not bad. So, and the effect the unemployment rate rose

0:04:05.360 --> 0:04:08.640
<v Speaker 3>is less of a less of a concern. I think

0:04:08.680 --> 0:04:12.120
<v Speaker 3>partially because there was again some issues with the government

0:04:12.160 --> 0:04:16.599
<v Speaker 3>shut down impacting the data. And then in today's inflation data,

0:04:17.040 --> 0:04:20.039
<v Speaker 3>the airlines were a big driver of the weakness, and

0:04:20.040 --> 0:04:21.880
<v Speaker 3>that there was also canceled flights. There was just a

0:04:21.880 --> 0:04:22.520
<v Speaker 3>lot going on.

0:04:23.000 --> 0:04:26.120
<v Speaker 1>Uh in your first look at the noises the airlines.

0:04:26.320 --> 0:04:28.760
<v Speaker 3>First look at the noises the airlines. They fell six

0:04:28.800 --> 0:04:30.840
<v Speaker 3>point five percent over two months, so it comes out

0:04:30.839 --> 0:04:34.400
<v Speaker 3>to about three percent each month. Right if you look

0:04:34.400 --> 0:04:36.480
<v Speaker 3>at the you know, the core number was point one

0:04:37.440 --> 0:04:41.200
<v Speaker 3>nine across both months. That's you know, quite quite low.

0:04:41.240 --> 0:04:45.160
<v Speaker 3>A pail was was pretty weak. That is probably tied

0:04:45.160 --> 0:04:48.640
<v Speaker 3>to this whole holiday discounting issue. So there's a lot

0:04:48.680 --> 0:04:51.560
<v Speaker 3>of sort of noise within within within the report, and

0:04:51.600 --> 0:04:53.320
<v Speaker 3>part tied to the government shutdown, and port tied to

0:04:53.320 --> 0:04:56.520
<v Speaker 3>the fact that it's just a sort of less inflationary

0:04:56.520 --> 0:04:58.320
<v Speaker 3>backdrop than the market.

0:04:58.400 --> 0:05:01.520
<v Speaker 2>Higher futures of forty now forty seven, nansdeck up one

0:05:01.560 --> 0:05:04.600
<v Speaker 2>point three half percent, the nansdack one hundred, I should say,

0:05:04.720 --> 0:05:08.440
<v Speaker 2>vict sixteen point eight three. You know, I look at

0:05:08.440 --> 0:05:11.240
<v Speaker 2>this stuff, I look at the whole ballet of it all,

0:05:12.160 --> 0:05:15.840
<v Speaker 2>and I am more than certain I learned this from

0:05:15.880 --> 0:05:20.719
<v Speaker 2>David Rosenberg at Merrill years ago, Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner,

0:05:20.839 --> 0:05:23.440
<v Speaker 2>and Smith. I saw an article that is just Meryl.

0:05:23.480 --> 0:05:26.760
<v Speaker 2>I said, it will never just be maryl. You just

0:05:26.839 --> 0:05:30.560
<v Speaker 2>mentioned that the pros like you look at each line item.

0:05:31.200 --> 0:05:34.480
<v Speaker 2>What do the service sector line items say and the

0:05:34.640 --> 0:05:39.080
<v Speaker 2>angst of affoord to be in purchasing power, utility bills,

0:05:39.720 --> 0:05:42.640
<v Speaker 2>medical bills, the auto insurance.

0:05:43.279 --> 0:05:45.000
<v Speaker 1>Can you see those in the report?

0:05:45.279 --> 0:05:47.839
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, we can see that in the report. Motor vehicle

0:05:47.880 --> 0:05:52.000
<v Speaker 3>insurance looks pretty flat. Transportation services, lodging, all that stuff

0:05:52.040 --> 0:05:55.800
<v Speaker 3>was pretty soft. It's hard to know to what extent

0:05:55.839 --> 0:05:58.840
<v Speaker 3>this is government shutdown related. My senses, it probably is,

0:05:58.880 --> 0:06:01.680
<v Speaker 3>and we'll see a bit of a bounce act. And

0:06:01.720 --> 0:06:04.240
<v Speaker 3>then on the good side, that was all pretty soft,

0:06:04.279 --> 0:06:06.200
<v Speaker 3>outside of maybe some used vehicles.

0:06:06.839 --> 0:06:09.640
<v Speaker 1>Fed pick. What do you think who.

0:06:09.560 --> 0:06:11.080
<v Speaker 3>Should it be? Or who do I think it will be?

0:06:12.320 --> 0:06:14.080
<v Speaker 1>We have time for both answers.

0:06:14.680 --> 0:06:16.160
<v Speaker 3>I would love to see Waller. I think he'd be

0:06:16.200 --> 0:06:18.240
<v Speaker 3>a great pick, and I think markets would really prefer

0:06:18.279 --> 0:06:20.560
<v Speaker 3>to see Waller, who I think is more likely. It's

0:06:20.560 --> 0:06:22.520
<v Speaker 3>probably more likely to be Hassett, although it does seem

0:06:22.600 --> 0:06:25.719
<v Speaker 3>like incrementally over the past couple of weeks, there seems

0:06:25.760 --> 0:06:28.760
<v Speaker 3>to be some more concerns about Hasset, or at least

0:06:28.760 --> 0:06:31.560
<v Speaker 3>more hesitation out of the White House right for picking him.

0:06:31.680 --> 0:06:34.080
<v Speaker 2>Stephanie Roth, thank you so much for joining us, your

0:06:34.080 --> 0:06:37.359
<v Speaker 2>commitment to surveillances appreciated, of course. With the Fed decides

0:06:37.440 --> 0:06:39.120
<v Speaker 2>and other great moments,