Existing users please login

 

Home / Markets / Economy

Consumer Prices Surge 1.1% in June

 
Associated Press
     

    Consumer prices shot up in June at the second fastest pace in 26 years with two-thirds of the surge blamed on soaring energy prices.

    The Labor Department reported that consumer prices jumped 1.1% last month, much worse than had been expected. Energy prices rocketed upward by 6.6%, reflecting big gains for gasoline, home heating oil and natural gas.

    The big rise in prices cut deeply into consumers' earning power with average weekly wages, after adjusting for inflation, falling by 0.9%. It was the biggest monthly decline since a 1.1% drop in weekly wages in September 2005.

    The 1.1% June price increase was the second largest monthly advance in the past 26 years, surpassed only by a 1.3% gain in September 2005 from a jolt to energy costs after Hurricane Katrina.

    Separately, the Federal Reserve reported that industrial output rose 0.5% in June, the fastest pace in 11 months. The increase, the highest since a 0.6% gain in July of last year, reflected an end to an automotive production strike rather than any widespread strength in the economy.

    The report on retail inflation followed similarly grim news on Tuesday that wholesale prices had shot up by 1.8% in June.

    Wall Street turned higher on Wednesday as a second day of falling oil prices helped to offset the concerns about the jump in inflation last month. The Dow Jones industrial average was up more than 125 points in late morning trading.

    Even with the two-day slide in the price of oil, a barrel of crude is about 80% higher than it was a year ago and 40% higher than at the start of the year. As recently as Friday, crude oil trade at record levels above $147 a barrel.

    Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, wrapping up two days of congressional testimony, repeated his concerns about inflation in remarks to the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday. He said that the upside risks to the inflation outlook have intensified, reflecting higher prices for oil and other commodities.

    Bernanke's comments underscored the bind the central bank is in, caught between a faltering economy that is struggling to overcome a prolonged housing slump and a severe credit squeeze, and the risk that inflation would move higher.

    Democrats in Congress said the new inflation report emphasized the need to pass a second stimulus package because the Fed's room to boost growth through further cuts in interest rates was being limited by higher inflation pressures.

    "We're now seeing danger for the economy on both sides -- growth is too slow and inflation is too high," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement. He urged the Bush administration to work with Congress to "pass some mainstream, bipartisan solutions for our economy."

    The White House sought to signal continued concern about the economy's weakness but didn't indicate any change in the administration's opposition to a second stimulus package.

    "The President is very concerned about the impact high prices are having on Americans, especially those who are on lower incomes. What the president would reiterate is what he said yesterday ... that the health of the overall economy is dependent on inflation remaining low," presidential press secretary Dana Perino told reporters.

    Many analysts believe that the central bank is likely to leave interest rates unchanged for the rest of the year out of concern that any tightening of credit policy could send the economy into an even worse tailspin.

    Over the past 12 months, consumer inflation is up by 5%, the largest year-over-year gain since a similar 5% rise in May 1991.

    Food prices also showed a big increase in June, rising by 0.7%, more than double the 0.3% increase of May. Vegetable prices shot up by 6.1%, the biggest increase in nearly three years.

    Core inflation, which excludes energy and food, showed rising pressures too, with an increase of 0.3% in June, up from a 0.2% gain in May and the biggest one-month rise since January.

    This increase reflected a 4.5% jump in airline ticket prices, the biggest one-month rise for airline fares since March 2000.

     
     

    FOX Translator

    Detach

    No data currently available.

    No data currently available.

    No-Load Funds

    Some mutual funds want you to pay for the privilege of them (or your investment adviser) taking your money to invest. It's called a load, and it works like a cover charge to get into a nightclub. Luckily, there are such things as no-load funds. As the name implies, shares of these funds are sold without a fee paid to a broker or investment advisor.

    The entire amount you invest in no-load funds goes to work for your returns. On the other hand, with load funds, right off the bat you're charged commission (not to mention other fees incurred over the life of the investment). Let's say, for example, you invest $25,000 into a load fund that charges a 5% commission. This costs you $1,250 off the top, bringing your actual investment down to only $23,750.

    The often-cited horse race analogy argues against investing in load funds. Here's the logic behind it: Would you place a bet on a horse that had to start a race 200 yards behind the others? Well, maybe you would if you got a tip from a sketchy, trench coat-clad man in a dark alley. However, under most circumstances, it's not smart to put your money on that handicapped horse.

    But some argue that at times that man in the trench coat (aka your broker) knows more about the horses than you do, and has a better shot at picking a winner. Also, sometimes these fees are unavoidable because some funds are available only through investment advisers.

    Cost-benefit analysis can help determine when a load fund is worth it (in other words, when it will score you a load) and when it is better to "do it yourself" and avoid the fees. Load-fund fees range depending on share class and can cover a variety of costs, such as paper work and fund management.