Hello my friends, today is August 16th and this is markets weekly. So this past week was kind of a slow summer weekend market again where we just kind of had a modest melt up. However, we did have some interesting data. So today let's talk about three things. First off, let's talk about the interesting idea that the rise in unemployment rate among new grads is due to replacement from AI. Let's take a look at this from two perspectives. Secondly, this past week was all about inflation. We had CPI, we had PPI and we had import prices. Let's take a look at the data, see how the market received it and see how this might impact the Fed. And lastly, now I'm getting the sense that we are in some kind of dot com boom, particularly when it comes to AI. This is a mean of can't go higher, but of course, let's also look at how this compares to the dot com boom among some metrics.
All right, starting with the labor market. So as we've all observed, it's hard and harder for new college grads to find work. Now one of the leading theories for this is due to AI. Now according to this interesting research piece from the Burning Glass Institute, AI could be replacing young workers. Now first off, let's take a step back and look at what AI is good at. AI is good at customer service, writing, editing, basically data stuff and stuff that you would expect a junior employee to do. For example, if you were a new investment banker, you would be building models, you would be making pitch books.
And today that work could be done basically instantly by AI and oftentimes much better. And we do hear anecdotal reports of firms using more AI and just hiring fewer general junior employees. Now looking at the data for the unemployment rate among people in the early 20s, segmented by degree status, we noticed that recently there's been a jump in the unemployment rate among new college grads. However, when you look at young people who don't have a college degree or who have an associate's degree, you don't really see that jump in unemployment. So this seems to be a phenomenon that's confined to new college grads.
Taking a step further, when you look at the unemployment rate by specific college discipline, there's a notable jump in the unemployment rate among new grads in computer science. And as we've all read, AI adoption is most prevalent in the tech sector. They are, after all, most technically savvy. So all of this kind of makes sense. And then there are also other data points that suggest there's been an increase in the demand for more experienced workers and a relative decline in demand for less experienced workers, which also makes sense because if you are a more experienced worker, you can leverage your experience and basically just use AI to have an unlimited amount of junior employees. You basically become more viable and more productive.
So looking at the data, it all kind of, you know, it incorporates this basic thesis that firms are using AI more and AI is replacing junior employees. However, let's take a look at research done by a different team of researchers who come to a different conclusion. First off, their approach is to segment the labor market according to vulnerability to AI. According to them, some jobs are much more vulnerable to AI than others. Something that's not very vulnerable would be like a ballerina or some kind of handyman job, whereas if you are someone who's like a financial data analyst, your job is super vulnerable to AI.
So they categorize job vulnerability from one to five with one being the least vulnerable. Just looking at the basic demographics of these industries, you notice that overall college grads are the most vulnerable to AI, whereas blue-collar men are the least vulnerable. So if there is an impact of AI on jobs, we'd expect the unemployment rate to rise among jobs among occupations that are most vulnerable to AI. But when they break the data down, that's just not very clear. You can see that there's no notable spike in the unemployment rate among occupations that are most vulnerable to AI.
But that's not the only way to look at it. It's also possible that if you are a worker that got displaced by AI, you're just straight out, unemployable, think about the boomer who's doing data analysis his entire life. He can obviously train to become a ballerina or something like that, so he just leaves there, a labor force. But when you break down the data by people leaving the labor force, it's not really clear that jobs that are most vulnerable to AI displacement are suffering from particularly higher rate of people exiting labor force.
Another way to slice the data is just to look at this on a firm wide basis, our firms that are most vulnerable to AI shrinking. Maybe that's how it shows up. When you look at the employment levels of firms in the category of jobs that are most vulnerable to AI, you don't actually see that either. So far, you don't really see AI having an obvious impact. But this team of researchers also directly addressed the claim that AI is having a negative impact on new college grads. Now when you break down new college grads by the employment they're choosing, you can see that the unemployment rate for new college grads are rising across the board, not just in industries where they work that are most vulnerable to AI.
So their conclusion is that AI is not really having a noticeable impact on the labor market, at least not yet. And so maybe the rise in unemployment that we see among new grads is more of a macroeconomic phenomenon. Maybe it's a slowing at the economy rather than AI. So two perspectives here, I personally find the second perspective to be more persuasive. I personally definitely use AI every day. I think it's a really good way to search the web. Definitely makes my life easier. But it doesn't seem so far that it's been rising on the macroeconomic scale to be replacing new grads in any significant way. That could happen, of course. So it remains to be seen.
All right, the second thing that we want to talk about is inflation. So as we all know, we are kind of in an interesting place where labor market is weakening, but inflation remains pretty subrenally high above the Fed's target. And we all want to know what the Fed is going to do. There's a debate on the FOMC right now where we had two notable dissents last meeting and maybe we'll have more dissents going forward. The market at the moment is pricing in a pretty firmly a September cut.
So last week we got CPI and CPI actually, I thought it had a pretty interesting market reaction. So headline CPI was a little bit lower than expected, but core CPI was a little bit higher than expected. And when you look at this from an annualized perspective, it's really clear that inflation seems to be heading higher at least based on the most recent CPI print. Or at the very least, if you zoom out a little bit, it's really clear that inflation is just kind of stuck around 3%, according to CPI, higher of course than the Fed's target. But the market took one look at that CPI print and began, the bond market began to rally fiercely and the market began to be more sure that we would have rate cuts in the coming meetings.
Now that's kind of interesting, but that could simply be that the market was kind of afraid or braced for a worse print and it got a better than expected print. But looking at the data itself, it's just really clear that inflation is not at least trending lower. Now one interesting thing that people have been looking at is for signs that you have some kind of inflation driven by tariffs. Now, the tariff pass who really wasn't very obvious in the last print, what was more interesting is that inflation seems to be led by increases in services. Now to be clear, some of the services inflation could be due to, you know, also indirectly due to tariffs, maybe some vendor, services vendor simply is importing some of their raw material, something like that and passing that on.
But oh no, it's not super clean the data that there's been a clear pass through. Now the second set of inflation prints we got were PPI, that is prices received by US producers. Now PPI was surprisingly much higher than market expectations and it elested a pretty strong reaction from the market. The market basically unwelmed a lot of the rallying bonds that we saw from CPI, although of course it's still firmly priced in a September cut. Now PPI services was also particularly hot, but a lot of data is basically margins.
Now when you're thinking about margins from PPI, it's important to note that it's a very volatile series. For example, let's say that you are a wholesaler that imports stuff for $98 and then sells it to someone for $100. Remargin is 2%, you know, even if that margin would go to 3%, that would be a 50% increase, but at the end of the day it's only 3%, and it's not going to have a big price impact on whoever you sell it to. So this PPI services margin is a very volatile series. And again, as we usually note, what matters to the Fed is not CPI or PPI, but ultimately what matters is PCE.
Now when you have CPI and PC, you're going to make a pretty good calculation as to what PCE will be. According to the Cleveland Fed, PCE is going to be, you know, let's say a little bit below 3%, which of course is notably above the Fed's 2% target, but again, it just kind of been stuck there for some time. So looking at this data, what is the Fed going to do? Now the Fed isn't a pretty tough spot because as the labor market appears to be weakening, it seems like inflation is also stuck as well.
Part of that inflation could be due to tariffs, and so you have more dovish peoples like over the wall I would say that. So this tariff stuff fits a one-time increase in the price level. It's transitory after the firms make this one-time increase in prices due to tariffs. If you're not going to do the same, after all, there's not going to be additional tariffs, at least we don't expect them to be additional tariffs next year. And at the same time, science at the labor market is weakening, so we've got to cut.
And it seems like the market is firmly believing that the Fed at least will cut once September, maybe twice, again, maybe in December, but that's basically the market's expectations. A more hawkish person could say, and this is still totally possible, that we just shouldn't cut it off. Policy is a good word is. Labor market is strong. Yeah, what looks like weakness is simply that we have a reduced increase in supply of labor due to lower immigration, overall unemployment rate is low.
Now, sure, Powell is going to speak at Jackson Honex week, and it's possible he could tilt his hand to show a little bit of how he's leaning. But with such disagreement on the Fed, my bet is that Jackson Hose is just not super and ventful, maybe talking more about the importance of Fed independence and so forth. After all, he still doesn't have the next non-farm payrolls report, which I think would be decisive when it comes to whether or not the labor market is weakening.
So the moment the market is happy, firmly pressing again, cut at September, another cut by the end of the year, and beyond that, we'll just have to see where the data falls. Okay, the last thing that I want to talk about is that there are just more and more signs to me that we are in some kind of dot com style boom that inevitably will be followed by some sort of dot com bust. But to be clear, these things can go higher.
It doesn't mean you can't make money. It doesn't mean we can't go much higher. But I think it does significantly really increase the possibility that we could also go much lower. Now, there's a lot of different ways to look at the markets when you come to this. But I think some popular metrics, again, these metrics obviously don't really matter because of traditional fundamental metrics. It didn't matter at all. We wouldn't be where we are today.
But I think it's interesting because it's a reference point to compare things today to in the past and not so much to, you know, you must create an ex-valuation or else you're overvalued, but just to compare where we are today compared to where we are back in the dot com boom. A popular way to compare or to value equities is a relative way, just to compare equities to bonds and another popular way is to compare it on a more fundamental way, say price to earnings, price to sales and so forth.
So looking at relative, relative valuation, a popular way is to compare, look at something called the equity risk premium, which is say, just thinking at equities as if they were some kind of bond and created some kind of earnings yield based on expected earnings. And then compare that to what you could get if you were to invest in fixed income and this is called an equity risk premium. And if you look at this, it's pretty low and it's comparable to what people compute as the term premium for bonds to be.
Now all this stuff is model dependent, so it's probably nonsense. Actually, I do believe it's nonsense, but I use it simply because consistently speaking, comparing what it is saying today to comparing to what it was in the past, you can see that now things are quite elevated today compared to where it's been in the past few years.
Another popular way to value equities is to look at price relative to fundamental metric, be it earnings, here let's look at sales because earnings could be subject to all sorts of other accounting adjustments, but sales I think it's kind of a more straightforward way to look at this. On the price to sales ratio, you can see that stocks today are fairly elevated and comparable to errors like the dot com boom. So these are metrics that are now suggesting some sort of fundamental overvaluation.
Now you can also look at anecdotal reports. We do have some obvious bubbles in the markets. Let's say some stocks, storied AI related stocks that trade a P to say 600 and just kind of seem to go higher and higher and higher. Now let's be totally clear. This is a company that has significant growth in earnings, but let's also be totally clear that there's no way you can lower your going earnings such as the P ratio of 600 makes sense. It's obvious, obvious, total complete bubble.
Again, you can also have a lot of anecdotal reports, tremendous amounts of retail enthusiasm and retail traders have been very successful. Buying the dip has worked very, very well and they've all done very well. But just speaking of someone who has played this game for a long time, one of the weaknesses that you learn overall in time is that when you continue to win, you have an emotional impulse to bit bigger and bigger and become a year and a year and that continues to work until it doesn't.
It's something that we kind of learned throughout our trading journey that everyone walks on. And so when you have more and more retail involvement, that often tells me that people would become more and more levered and become more and more vulnerable to snapbacks. And of course, some of the signs are you have fabled 23-year-old hedge fund managers making a killing, managing billions.
And to be clear, I'm sure this person is very high IQ, but at the end of the day, you're 23 years old. So I think these are all signs of, there's a lot of exuberance in the markets and does the mean can go higher, but it does mean personally speaking that this will inevitably be followed by some kind of bust. Don't know when, but it will happen.
All right, so that's all I prepared for today. Next week, not much going on, headline will be on Jackson Hole, where Paul will speak and maybe say something about monetary policy, but maybe with so much uncertainty, so much data to be coming. And of course, disagreement on the FOMC, my best is probably not too interesting. All right, talk to you all then.