Consumer price inflation is surging globally and an intense debate is raging as to whether this is merely a transient phenomenon reflecting abnormally low base effects or something of a more lasting nature. We see upside risks to inflation in the short term, but to us inflation is a process, not an event. Although we see incipient shifts that could push us into a higher inflation regime over time, it is not yet clear if something systemic is changing the inflation process itself.
Consumer price inflation (CPI) has accelerated sharply and broadly in recent months. US CPI inflation surged to 4.2% YoY in April, the highest level since 2008 and the core inflation measure hit 3.0% YoY, its highest level since 1995. The vast majority of central banks – particularly in developed markets (DM) – have expressed little worry in the face of rising inflation. Given the persistent inflation “deficit” of the last decade, a temporary inflation overshoot is seen as the desirable outcome. It is the goal enshrined in the US Fed’s new policy framework of Average Inflation Targeting (AIT).
Central banks are probably right that most of the current inflation spike is transient in nature. However, even if this is true in general, there remains the possibility that, while transient, the inflation spike is either more severe in its intensity or slower to unwind than currently anticipated. Does “transient” imply normalization within a three-, six- or twelve-month horizon? Or longer?
Tracking Global Inflation Indicators
Most leading inflation indicators, including commodity prices or shipping costs, remain in line with and do not yet indicate a break with prior post-recession recovery patterns. However, a few others suggest that something more acute is playing out at the moment. For example, global manufacturing supply chains appear more stretched today than in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), with global manufacturing capacity utilization at a record high and backlogs at the highest level since 2004 (Figure 1). It is a true testament to the strength of current demand that backlogs are so elevated despite record capacity utilization.
Figure 1: Global Manufacturing Supply Chains Stretched
There are also important divergences beneath the top-line world aggregate metrics. For instance, while the input and output price indexes from the IHS Markit Composite Purchasing Managers’ Indexes (PMI) for emerging markets (EM) are just at or closing in on their post-GFC highs (Figure 2), the same metrics for DM have long exceeded those levels (Figure 3). In other words, relative to history, these particular leading indicators of DM inflation are flashing a more intense red than at any time since the GFC.
That cyclical inflationary pressures appear more acute in DM is an intriguing break from the past, but it makes sense given DM’s lead in vaccine rollouts and their more aggressive fiscal/monetary policy support during the crisis. That US households today have nearly US$3 trillion in liquid savings (as of Q4, before the last round of stimulus checks) speak volumes about the demand backdrop and, by implication, the pricing power backdrop in which businesses operate today.
Pricing power may indeed be the most critical differentiator between the inflation experience coming out of the COVID-19 crisis and that of the post-GFC period. The unprecedented high levels of household savings, not only in the United States but also in Europe, make for a consumer who is better able to absorb and weather price increases. With severe strain on supply chains, skyrocketing input prices and severe constraints to labor supply, many businesses may have little choice but to raise prices.
Figure 3: Composite PMI Price Signals – Developed Markets
There is broad anecdotal evidence of a shift in this direction. Respondent comments in the ISM surveys indicate that broad and intense price pressures across supply chains are forcing firms to pass some price increases to their customers. Warren Buffet was recently quoted by the Wall Street Journal stating: “we’re rising prices, people are rising prices on us, and it’s being accepted”.1
How quickly inflation subsides from its peak will depend largely on how long this acceptance persists in the marketplace. We lean toward an extended unwind to cyclical inflation pressures on the basis that exhausting the huge pent-up demand will take more than just a few quarters. Even if inflation pressures were to eventually subside on the manufacturing side, new waves of pressure could develop in services as we reach full normalization. The eventual recovery in the rental market, which was disrupted during the pandemic, should also put a floor under inflation next year.
Is the Inflation Process Changing?
While a correct appreciation of the full cyclical intensity of inflation over the next few quarters is critical for optimal tactical asset allocation decisions, long-term investors are most concerned about the structural inflation backdrop. In this regard, they are quite similar to central bankers, who also downplay short-term inflation volatility, focusing instead on long-term trends. After all, if today’s elevated inflation is primarily driven by pent-up demand and supply chain strains, we know that those issues will eventually be resolved and taken out of the equation. We therefore must ask: what is left to drive inflation in the future?
Here we come to a point often reiterated in the past: inflation is a process, not an event. In order to assess whether something is structurally changing on the inflation front, we must consider whether the inflation “process” itself is being sustainably altered. There are several trend shifts that suggest we might indeed be on the verge of such a change. The challenge, however, is that these changes are too recent to be confidently extrapolated into the future. Moreover, many are also subject to political risk that could either slow or accelerate them in coming years.
This dependency on political outcomes is critically important because inflation expectations themselves are central to the inflation process. Inflation expectations are unlikely to move sustainably higher unless businesses and consumers believe that the forces conducive to higher inflation are here to stay. Besides, inflation itself is highly unlikely to remain elevated in the absence of higher inflation expectations.
As frustrating as this may be, the reality is that the answers to the structural inflation questions are simply not yet available. Not just to us, or to investors in general, but not even to policy makers. It is a wait-and-see game, all part of the new experiential approach to monetary and fiscal policy making that has become so broadly embraced during the COVID-19 recession. Perhaps the best approach for investors is to be willing to entertain the possibility that a new inflation regime may be brewing, and to actively monitor incoming data and policy actions that could indicate such a shift is indeed taking hold.
Thus, what are we monitoring? The list below is by no means comprehensive, but these are some of the forces that we not only consider as highly influential but also see as indicative of an inflection point relative to the past fifteen years.
A new, more experiential approach to macroeconomic policy. The AIT/ Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) combo is an extraordinary departure from the old thought process around appropriate macro policy. So far, the US Fed is the only central bank to have formally adopted AIT, but there is broader sympathy for the idea that policy settings should be driven more by actual economic outcomes than model-driven forecasts. The same is true of fiscal policy – there is an evolving view of what sustainable debt levels are and more willingness to soften the rigid fiscal discipline rules of the past.
Importantly, one need not go all the way down the MMT path to make a real-life impact here. The crux of the matter is that today’s macro policy orientation is materially more dovish than during past recoveries. Economies seem poised to run hotter for longer, and, presumably, more inflationary pressures should result from this.
Equity and inclusion as stated macroeconomic goals. Policy makers are broadening the goals of economic policy and the metrics by which their progress is tracked. A good example is the Fed’s evolving “full employment” goal, which has become a much more multi-dimensional definition, with inclusiveness as a new priority. The emphasis on inclusion and equitable growth permeates all areas of macro policy, including tax and labor policies.
The intent is to reduce economic disparities through various means, including income redistribution. To the extent that such actions put more money in places where they are likely to be spent rather than saved, the resulting boost to demand could prove inflationary, at least until such time as supply adjustments bring about a new equilibrium.
Shifting global supply chains/peak globalization. Globalization has been a major contributor to the disinflation trend of the past two decades. The shift in global supply chains to lower-cost locations (a structural shift dominated by China) has allowed firms to cushion profit margins without needing to raise selling prices. However, labor cost differentials between China and DM have shrunk greatly, and there is much less scope for additional disinflationary benefits over the next few years.
India’s economic ascent could offer another sizable disinflationary opportunity, but only further down the line. In the context of the US-China strategic rivalry and the supply chain vulnerabilities exposed by the COVID-19 crisis, we expect to see supply chains move incrementally toward higher-cost, rather than lower-cost, locations in the next few years. It remains an open question whether higher labor costs could be offset by increased automation or other types of technology upscaling. Nonetheless, peak globalization would appear inflationary.
Transition to a green economy. Accelerating the transition toward a green economy could prove to be inflationary in the interim. Such a transition will inevitably render some part of the existing capital stock obsolete and require the parallel development of alternative production processes. As firms make that transition, their cost of doing business is likely to temporarily increase. Again, whether these higher costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices is unknown at this time, but we have yet another potential driver of higher inflation.
Inflation expectations. Finally, we are watching closely to see whether inflation expectations are drifting higher. A change in inflation expectations could alter consumer behavior and create a more inflationary environment almost irrespective of the other factors noted above. It is too soon to assert that inflation expectations are sustainably rising, but they have clearly moved off their lows.
It does appear that the multi-year decline in inflation expectations that took hold after the GFC has come to an end (Figure 4). US Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted that inflation expectations have moved closer to levels consistent with the central bank’s inflation goal. The implication is twofold: they need to rise further and need to stay at those elevated levels.
Figure 4: Inflation Expectations of US Consumers Seem to Have Bottomed
Is Sustained Higher Inflation Inevitable?
Despite the inflationary forces discussed above, we do not believe that higher sustained inflation is inevitable. This is because just as structural inflationary forces may be intensifying, they are encountering powerful structural deflationary forces at play. Technology, demographics and debt are powerful constraints to high inflation. Moreover, high inflation is ultimately a policy choice, and policy settings can and most likely will be adjusted down the line to keep inflation in check. After all, the AIT framework allows only for a temporary inflation overshoot above 2.0%.
Given the multiple moving pieces (short- and longer-term) around inflation, it is reasonable to expect that the volatility of inflation expectations will increase going forward. As that occurs, it is possible that the yield sensitivity to future inflation shocks actually declines. The intuition here is that as additional inflation shocks occur within that higher-inflation-expectation environment, each such event should have less of a signal component and therefore should drive a smaller yield reaction.
A higher-inflation environment – especially against a backdrop of strong demand – could be broadly supportive for equities. It would seem to imply a favorable pricing environment for firms and would therefore be supportive of corporate earnings. As always, though, investors must recognize that not all sectors of the economy – and certainly not all firms – would be equally well positioned to capitalize on this favorable macroeconomic backdrop. Finding champions in the right sectors may not be easy, but it would certainly be profitable!
1 Kang, J. (2021, May 9). Higher Prices Leave Consumers Feeling the Pinch. The Wall Street Journal.
The whole or any part of this work may not be reproduced, copied or transmitted or any of its contents disclosed to third parties without State Street Global Advisors’ express written consent.
The views expressed in this material are the views of the Global Macro Policy Research team through 17 May 2021 and are subject to change based on market and other conditions. This document contains certain statements that may be deemed forward looking statements. Please note that any such statements are not guarantees of any future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected.
The information provided does not constitute investment advice and it should not be relied on as such. It should not be considered a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell a security. It does not take into account any investor's particular investment objectives, strategies, tax status or investment horizon. You should consult your tax and financial advisor. All information is from State Street Global Advisors unless otherwise noted and has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. There is no representation or warranty as to the current accuracy, reliability or completeness of, nor liability for, decisions based on such information and it should not be relied on as such.
Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Investing involves risk including the risk of loss of principal.
The trademarks and service marks referenced herein are the property of their respective owners. Third party data providers make no warranties or representations of any kind relating to the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of the data and have no liability for damages of any kind relating to the use of such data.
For EMEA Distribution: The information contained in this communication is not a research recommendation or ‘investment research’ and is classified as a ‘Marketing Communication’ in accordance with the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (2014/65/EU) or applicable Swiss regulation. This means that this marketing communication (a) has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research (b) is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research.
Equity securities may fluctuate in value in response to the activities of individual companies and general market and economic conditions.
Investing in foreign domiciled securities may involve risk of capital loss from unfavorable fluctuation in currency values, withholding taxes, from differences in generally accepted accounting principles or from economic or political instability in other nations. Investments in emerging or developing markets may be more volatile and less liquid than investing in developed markets and may involve exposure to economic structures that are generally less diverse and mature and to political systems which have less stability than those of more developed countries.
ETFs trade like stocks, are subject to investment risk, fluctuate in market value and may trade at prices above or below the ETFs net asset value. Brokerage commissions and ETF expenses will reduce returns. Changes in exchange rates may have an adverse effect on the value, price or income of an investment. Further there is no guarantee that an ETF will achieve its investment objective. SSGA SPDR ETFS MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE OR SUITABLE FOR YOU. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED/INFORMATION IN THIS SITE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INVESTMENT ADVICE, FINANCIAL, LEGAL, REGULATORY, ACCOUNTING OR TAX ADVICE. INDEPENDENT ADVICE SHOULD BE SOUGHT IN CASES OF DOUBT. NEITHER THE INFORMATION NOR ANY OPINION CONTAINED ON THIS SITE CONSTITUTES A SOLICITATION OR OFFER TO BUY OR SELL SHARES OF THE FUNDS OR ANY OTHER FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT. Standard & Poor's®, S&P® and SPDR® are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC (S&P); Dow Jones is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC (Dow Jones); and these trademarks have been licensed for use by S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC (SPDJI) and sublicensed for certain purposes by State Street Corporation. State Street Corporation's financial products are not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by SPDJI, Dow Jones, S&P, their respective affiliates and third party licensors and none of such parties make any representation regarding the advisability of investing in such product(s) nor do they have any liability in relation thereto, including for any errors, omissions, or interruptions of any index.
SPDR ETFs may be offered and sold only in those jurisdictions where authorised, in compliance with applicable regulations.
Information related to Mexico
This information does not constitute and is not intended to constitute marketing or an offer of securities and accordingly should not be construed as such. The Funds referenced herein have not been, and will not be, registered under the Mexican Securities Market Law (Ley del Mercado de Valores) and may not be publicly offered or sold in the United Mexican States. Disclosure documentation related to any of the aforementioned Funds may not be distributed publicly in Mexico and shares of the Funds may not be traded in Mexico.
European SPDR ETFs
SSGA SPDR ETFs Europe I Plc and SSGA SPDR ETFs Europe II Plc are investment companies with variable capital constituted as umbrella funds with segregated liability between sub-funds under the laws of Ireland and authorized by the Central Bank of Ireland pursuant to the European Communities (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities) Regulations 2011.
You should obtain the Prospectus and Key Investor Information Document (KIID) relating to specific SPDR ETFs and read them carefully prior to investing. For further information and the Prospectus/KIID describing the characteristics, costs and risks of SPDR ETFs, download a Prospectus or KIID here, talk to your financial advisor, or obtain it from your local SSGA office.
US SPDR ETFs
The US domiciled SPDR ETFs named on this site are only permitted to be marketed into the relevant EEA jurisdiction pursuant to either Article 42 of AIFMD (as implemented under national laws of such member state); or (ii) can otherwise be lawfully offered or sold (including on the basis of an unsolicited request from a professional/Qualified investor). Some of the US domiciled SPDR ETFs mentioned in this site are alternative investment funds for the purpose of the European Union Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (Directive 2011/61/EU) (“AIFMD”). SSGA Funds Management, Inc. and State Street Global Advisors Trust Company are the alternative investment fund managers (“AIFMs”) of these Funds.
Before investing, consider the funds' investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. To obtain a prospectus which contains this and other information, download a prospectus here, or talk to your financial advisor. Read it carefully before investing.