The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI) was just above the flatline while the S&P 500 (GSPC) rose 0.6%, coming off a rout that saw the gauges drop about 1%.
US stocks rose on Thursday after a cooler-than-expected reading on producer prices helped soothe investor worries stemmed by Wednesday's surprise uptick in consumer prices.
US stocks rose on Thursday after a cooler-than-expected reading on producer prices helped soothe investor worries stemmed by Wednesday's surprise uptick in consumer prices.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average (®DJI) was just above the flatline while the S&P 500 (®GSPC) rose 0.6%, coming off a rout that saw the gauges drop about 1%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite (®IXIC) gained roughly 1.2%.
Meanwhile, the 10-year Treasury yield (®TNX) traded around 4.57% after surging to touch its highest level since November on Wednesday.
The Producer Price Index in March rose 0.2% from the previous month, a lower rate of growth than economists had forecast. Year-over-year growth of 2.1% was also below estimates.
However, that annual growth represented the highest level since April 2023 and came after a sharp increase in February's reading.
The data come just a day after consumer inflation data for March rose more than expected, denting investor optimism for a Federal Reserve rate cut as soon as June.
On the labor market front, the number of Americans filing new for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week, suggesting that the labor market remained healthy.
The Producer Price Index in March rose 0.2% from the previous month, a lower rate of growth than economists had forecast.
> The final demand index for gasoline fell to -3.6% in March, despite rising consumer prices.<
Investors had expected the PPI to gain 0.3% but it increased only slightly at 2.1% for the year through January and decreased from February's increase of 1.6%.
◦ The data come just a day after consumer inflation data for March rose more than expected, denting investor optimism for a Federal Reserve rate cut as soon as June.◩
On the labor market front, the number of Americans filing new for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week, suggesting that the labor market remained healthy.
Accuracy
> The final demand index for gasoline fell to -3.6% in March, despite rising consumer prices.
<
Δ The number of Americans filing new for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week, suggesting that the labor market remained healthy.
Ε
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that a cooler-than-expected reading on producer prices helped soothe investor worries stemmed by Wednesday's surprise uptick in consumer prices. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that the two events are related when they are not. The producer price index and consumer price index measure different things and should not be compared in such a way. Secondly, the author states that stocks pulled back after a hotter-than-expected March CPI report prompted investors to reassess expectations for Federal Reserve policy. However, this statement is also misleading as it implies that the two events are related when they are not. The producer price index and consumer price index measure different things and should not be compared in such a way.
The author claims that a cooler-than-expected reading on producer prices helped soothe investor worries stemmed by Wednesday's surprise uptick in consumer prices. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that the two events are related when they are not.
Fallacies
(75%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(75%)
The article contains several examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes white supremacists and portrays them as celebrating the reference to a racist conspiracy theory. This is an example of religious bias.
> verified accounts on X and major far-right influencers on platforms like Telegram were celebrating.
The producer price index (PPI) rose 0.2% in March, less than expected.
,
Excluding food and energy from the core level of the PPI increased by only 0.2%.
< The final demand index for gasoline fell to -3.6% in March, despite rising consumer prices.
Initial filings for jobless benefits decreased to 211,000 in a week.
Accuracy
< The final demand index for gasoline fell to -3.6% in March, despite rising consumer prices.>
< Initial filings for jobless benefits decreased to 211,00o in a week.
Deception
(30%)
The article is misleading in several ways. Firstly, the title states that wholesale prices rose less than expected when in fact they only increased by 0.2%, which was still higher than the estimate of 0.3% from the Dow Jones consensus and not as much as February's increase of 0.6%. Secondly, while it is true that on a year-over-year basis, PPI climbed to its highest level since April 2023, this does not necessarily mean pipeline pressures will keep inflation elevated. The article also fails to mention the fact that core PPI rose by only 0.1% and excluding trade services from the core level, there was no increase in monthly basis but a decrease of 28k year over year which is actually good news for consumers as it means prices are falling or at least not rising as fast. The article also mentions that consumer prices rose more than expected in March, raising concerns about the Federal Reserve's ability to lower interest rates anytime soon, however this does not relate to wholesale price increase and should be ignored.
The title of the article is misleading because it states that wholesale prices rose less than expected when in fact they only increased by 0.2%, which was still higher than the estimate of 0.3% from the Dow Jones consensus and not as much as February's increase.
The sentence 'On a year-over-year basis, PPI climbed to its highest level since April 2023
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Dow Jones consensus and the Federal Reserve's target without providing any evidence or context for these sources. Additionally, there is a dichotomy in the way that inflation is presented - on one hand, it is described as being less than expected but still rising at 2.1% annually; on the other hand, it is also said to be elevated and potentially holding higher for longer than many economists had expected. This creates confusion and contradiction in the article's messaging.
The author cites the Dow Jones consensus without providing any evidence or context for this source.
Bias
(10%)
The article reports on the producer price index (PPI) for March and its increase of 0.2%, which is less than expected but still indicates pipeline pressures that could keep inflation elevated. The PPI also rose by 2.1% on a yearly basis, indicating ongoing pressure from supply chain disruptions and other factors.
The producer price index (PPI) for March increased by 0.2%, which is less than expected but still indicates pipeline pressures that could keep inflation elevated.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Jeff Cox has conflicts of interest on the topics of inflation and consumer prices. He reports for a financial news outlet that is likely to have an interest in these topics.
.6% increase in February, April 2023 PPI gain, pipeline pressures that could keep inflation elevated.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Jeff Cox has conflicts of interest on the topics of inflation and consumer prices. He mentions the Dow Jones consensus, PPI increase in February, .6% increase in February and April 2023 PPI gain, pipeline pressures that could keep inflation elevated., initial filings for jobless benefits, 28,000 increase in continuing claims.
Data showing cooling producer prices eased inflation jitters somewhat just a day ahead of earnings from major Wall Street banks. At 13:55 ET (17:55 GMT), the rose 42 points, or 0.1%, the was 0.7% higher, while the gainedਁ.4%. PPI rises by less than expected in March.
The data come just a day after consumer inflation data for March rose more than expected, denting investor optimism for a Federal Reserve rate cut as soon as June.
Accuracy
Investors had expected the PPI to gain 0.3% but it increased only slightly at 2.1% for the year through January and decreased from February's increase of 1.6%.
Deception
(30%)
The article is misleading in several ways. Firstly, it states that the S&P 500 climbed on Thursday led by tech when in fact it was only up slightly and closed down later in the day. Secondly, while data showing cooling producer prices eased inflation jitters somewhat just a day ahead of earnings from major Wall Street banks is true, this does not negate the impact of consumer inflation data for March which rose more than expected and dented investor optimism for a Federal Reserve rate cut as soon as June. Thirdly, while the article mentions that markets see only a 24% chance for a June cut down from 61.1% seen last week, it fails to mention that this is based on recent market sentiment and does not reflect any official decision by the Federal Reserve.
The S&P 500 climbed Thursday led by tech
data showing cooling producer prices eased inflation jitters somewhat just a day ahead of earnings from major Wall Street banks
Markets see only a 24% chance for a June cut down from 61.1% seen last week
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing Goldman Sachs' recommendation for clients to buy call options in large cap banks. This is a form of financial advice and should not be taken as factual information without further research or consulting with a financial advisor.
Goldman Sachs said in a note that recommended clients buy call options in large cap banks.
Bias
(75%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by referring to white supremacists celebrating a reference to the racist and antisemitic conspiracy.
> 42 points, or 0.1%,
< Markets see only a 24% chance for a June cut, down from 61.1% seen last week.
> U.S. producer prices increased by slightly less than expected in March, with rising 0.2% last month, after rising by 0.6% in February.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest found in the article. The author has a financial stake in major Wall Street banks as they mention JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo specifically.
The author mentions specific companies ($NYSE:JPMorgan Chase, $NYSE:Citigroup, $NYSE:Wells Fargo ) that are part of the major Wall Street banks sector which they have a financial stake in.
