I haven't read the Boston Fed paper and have no horse in this race, but taking its claim at face value,
> “pass-through becomes about 25 **percentage points** greater when there is an increase in concentration similar to the one observed since the beginning of this century.”
translates to a difference between 4% and 29% pass-through, not 4% and 5%.
Thanks for point that it out. That’s not how I read it. The issue is that everything is normalized to a certain size shock. They use explain a 1% cost shock. If they used a different cost shock, their headline number would change. That can’t be right.
I haven't read the Boston Fed paper and have no horse in this race, but taking its claim at face value,
> “pass-through becomes about 25 **percentage points** greater when there is an increase in concentration similar to the one observed since the beginning of this century.”
translates to a difference between 4% and 29% pass-through, not 4% and 5%.
Thanks for point that it out. That’s not how I read it. The issue is that everything is normalized to a certain size shock. They use explain a 1% cost shock. If they used a different cost shock, their headline number would change. That can’t be right.