The Bureau of Labor Statistics shared additional information about inflation with select Wall Street users, as revealed in emails from the agency. This disclosure is expected to lead to increased scrutiny of how the government disseminates economic data, especially given the heightened interest from investors.
In February, an economist at the agency sparked controversy by sending an email to a group of data users discussing a change that may have impacted a surge in housing costs in the previous month’s Consumer Price Index. The email, directed to “Super Users,” quickly circulated within Wall Street, where any detail regarding inflation data can impact the bond market.
Initially, the Bureau of Labor Statistics claimed the email was an isolated error and denied the existence of a special list of users receiving privileged access to information.
However, emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request suggest ongoing communication between the agency, particularly the economist who sent the original email, and data users in the finance sector, potentially including analysts at major hedge funds. These emails also indicate the existence of a super user list, contradicting the agency’s previous denials.
One user inquired about being added to the super user email list in mid-February, to which the employee responded affirmatively.
Efforts to contact the employee were unsuccessful, as confirmed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Emily Liddel, an associate commissioner at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, clarified that the agency did not maintain an official super user list, suggesting the employee may have created the list independently.
The Labor Department redacted the names of email recipients in response to The New York Times’s records request, but their employers were visible in some instances, including economists at major investment banks and hedge funds.
While there is no evidence of early access to unreleased data, the employee engaged in detailed discussions with data users about inflation figures, which are critical for investors. The employee shared methodological details in some cases, shedding light on forthcoming changes in data calculations.
The employee’s actions raised concerns about transparency and market manipulation, especially when such information can impact trading decisions significantly.
The sharing of nonpublic information and the employee’s role in providing insights to select users without official approval undermined the agency’s credibility and trust.
The employee’s questionable actions highlight the need for stricter protocols in sharing economic data and maintaining transparency in the process.
