Home / Markets / Economy
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Wholesale Prices Plunge Record 2.8% in October
Ken Sweet
FOXBusiness
In a report that reflected the dramatic plunge in crude oil prices, U.S. producer prices took a record fall in October, the government said Monday.
The Labor Department said its producer price index fell 2.8% last month, much greater than the 1.8% decline economists had forecasted. The energy component of the report took its biggest decline since July 1996.
Excluding volatile food and energy prices, core producer prices rose 0.4% in October, matching the gains made the month before. Economists had forecasted a more modest increase of 0.1% in core inflation.
Producer prices are watched closely by Wall Street and economists because businesses must either absorb higher costs -- which translates into lower profitability -- or they have to pass on those costs to consumers.
Consumer inflation will be reflected in the consumer price index, which will be released Wednesday. Economists are looking for CPI to fall 0.7%, according to data provided by Thomson Reuters.
Despite the 2.8% drop in producer prices, PPI remains 5.2% higher from this same time last year, a sign that despite the lingering effects of high oil can still be seen in costs for businesses.
“We view these as legacy increases following the surge in commodity prices, which is now reversing,” wrote Ian Shepherdson, Chief U.S. Economist with High Frequency Economics.
Fox Business Video
-
-
Helping Veterans Land Jobs
-
Jul 2, 2009
Baird on Helping Soldiers
-
-
-
President's Plans Working
-
Jul 2, 2009
Goodstein on Stimulus Success
-
-
-
Jackson Lives On
-
Jul 2, 2009
Beck on Future of Jackson
-
-
-
$20 Dollars a Gallon
-
Jul 2, 2009
Paying More to Save Economy
-
-
-
Looking for the Road to Recovery
-
Jul 2, 2009
Morris on Unemployment
-
FOX Translator
No data currently available.
No data currently available.
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.






