Lead
New York Federal Reserve President John Williams said on Friday that technical issues around data collection likely pushed November’s consumer price index (CPI) reading slightly lower. Speaking on CNBC’s Squawk Box on Dec. 19, 2025, Williams estimated the distortion at roughly one-tenth of a percentage point after the Bureau of Labor Statistics published a delayed report showing the CPI rose at a 2.7% annualized rate. Economists polled by Dow Jones had expected a 3.1% reading. Williams pointed to missed October field collection and concentrated November sampling as key practical factors behind the anomaly.
Key Takeaways
- The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported November CPI rose at a 2.7% annualized rate, below the 3.1% economists expected.
- NY Fed President John Williams said technical factors — including missed October collection and heavy second-half November sampling — likely reduced the headline CPI by about 0.1 percentage point.
- The October CPI release was canceled and BLS relied on nonsurvey data sources and estimates for some components.
- Owners’ equivalent rent inputs for the canceled October month were estimated in a way that economists say produced a downward bias in that component.
- Williams noted some CPI categories not affected by collection issues showed encouraging cooling, suggesting parts of the disinflation trend remain intact.
- Economists and market participants are likely to treat the November print cautiously and await December data for a clearer read on trend inflation.
Background
The consumer price index, compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, measures changes in prices paid by urban consumers for a broad basket of goods and services. A number of CPI components, notably shelter and owners’ equivalent rent (OER), rely on both survey responses and administrative or modeled inputs. In normal months BLS conducts household and outlet surveys across the month to capture price movements; for October 2025, BLS said it could not complete standard survey collection.
When field collection is incomplete, BLS can supplement with nonsurvey data and estimation methods to construct the index. Those estimations are designed to preserve continuity, but analysts caution they can introduce bias when the missing period differs systematically from the months that are observed. Shelter measures, which account for a large share of the CPI basket and move more slowly than goods prices, are particularly sensitive to how inputs are estimated for a missing month.
Main Event
On Dec. 19, 2025, John Williams addressed the November CPI on CNBC’s Squawk Box, explaining that data collection gaps in October and concentrated sampling later in November likely produced a downward distortion in the headline number. He said the pattern of collection — predominately in the second half of November, when sales and promotional activity were widespread — depressed prices in some categories and pulled down the overall CPI.
Williams estimated the net effect at around one-tenth of a percentage point, while acknowledging uncertainty and saying December’s data should provide a better gauge of the size of the distortion. He also pointed out complications in rent and other categories that were affected by the canceled October survey round and the BLS’ reliance on nonsurvey inputs for that month.
Despite his caution about the headline, Williams highlighted that several categories not directly affected by collection timing showed cooling price pressures, which he interpreted as consistent with an ongoing disinflationary process. He framed the comments in the context of the Fed’s focus on underlying inflation and the need to distinguish transitory statistical anomalies from persistent trend changes.
Analysis & Implications
Statistically, a one-tenth percentage-point downward bias on a single monthly CPI release is material for markets but modest in the broader inflation trajectory. If the distortion is confirmed, it would mean the November reading underestimates true underlying inflation for that month, and the sequence of monthly readings would require adjustment in interpretation rather than implying a sudden step-change in trend.
For monetary policy, the distinction between statistical noise and trend matters. Fed officials, including Williams, monitor a wide set of inflation measures and core gauges that strip out volatile components. A confirmed technical bias in November would likely temper any market interpretation that inflation resumed a sustainable decline and would keep Fed decision-making focused on incoming, corroborating data.
Economically, shelter measures like owners’ equivalent rent carry long lags and large weights in the CPI, so estimation choices for a missing month can shift the short-run headline. Markets may react to headline misses immediately, but fixed-income and currency traders will also watch wage, services, and core goods data across December and early 2026 to assess persistence.
Comparison & Data
| Measure | Expected (Dow Jones) | Reported (BLS) | Estimated technical effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| November CPI (annualized rate) | 3.1% | 2.7% | ~0.1 percentage point downward |
The simple table above summarizes the main numerical discrepancy: economists had expected a roughly 3.1% annualized pace while BLS reported 2.7% for November. Williams’ comment that technical factors may account for about 0.1 percentage point helps explain part of that gap. Analysts will look at component-level releases, seasonal patterns, and December collection to judge whether the November print reflected a genuine slowing or a temporary measurement issue.
Reactions & Quotes
“There were some special factors … they weren’t able to collect data in October … that pushed down the CPI reading, probably by a tenth or so.”
John Williams, President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (on CNBC)
“BLS could not go back and collect October survey data and relied on nonsurvey data sources to construct the index.”
Bureau of Labor Statistics (official release)
Market commentators and some economists responded by urging caution: many noted the missing October comparison and called for December figures and component-level detail before concluding that inflation had re-accelerated or resumed a clear downward path.
Unconfirmed
- The precise numerical magnitude of the November distortion remains uncertain until BLS or subsequent data clarifies the effect.
- The exact methods BLS used to estimate owners’ equivalent rent for the canceled October collection have not been fully disclosed in public detail.
- It is not yet confirmed whether December data will fully offset the November bias or reveal additional measurement complications.
Bottom Line
John Williams’ remarks underscore that the November CPI figure should be interpreted cautiously because of documented disruptions to standard BLS collection and replacement procedures. A technical downward bias of about 0.1 percentage point could explain a portion of the gap between expected and reported annualized rates, but it does not on its own change the medium-term inflation outlook.
Policymakers and markets will look to December and early 2026 releases for confirmation. For now, the prudent stance is to treat the November print as informative but potentially noisy and to weigh a broad set of indicators when assessing whether disinflation is sustained.