---
ticker: "USPPIFD"
title: "U.S. Final Demand Producer Price Index"
unit: "index"
frequency: "Monthly"
source: "Laspeyres (1871); Fisher (1922)"
release: "Updated Monthly"
category: "Consumer & Producer Prices"
country: "US"
language: "en"
canonical: "https://kred.dev/en/series/USPPIFD"
license: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"
latest_value: 159.78
latest_date: "2026-09-01"
first_date: "2009-11-01"
observations_total: 203
observations_shown: 120
---

# U.S. Final Demand Producer Price Index

## Overview

The US final-demand producer price index, seasonally adjusted at source, differing from the all-commodities USPPI in basket, seasonal convention and base.

## Key Figures

|  | Value | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Latest | 159.78 | 2026-09-01 |
| Change from previous | +2.12 | 2026-08-01 |
| Change over one year | +9.53 | 2025-09-01 |
| Highest on record | 159.78 | 2026-09-01 |
| Lowest on record | 100.20 | 2009-11-01 |
| Period covered | 2009-11-01 – 2026-09-01 |  |
| Observations | 203 |  |

## Recent observations

| Date | Value | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2016-10-01 | 110.90 | +0.30 |
| 2016-11-01 | 111.10 | +0.20 |
| 2016-12-01 | 111.40 | +0.30 |
| 2017-01-01 | 111.90 | +0.50 |
| 2017-02-01 | 111.90 | 0.00 |
| 2017-03-01 | 112.10 | +0.20 |
| 2017-04-01 | 112.60 | +0.50 |
| 2017-05-01 | 112.50 | -0.10 |
| 2017-06-01 | 112.60 | +0.10 |
| 2017-07-01 | 112.70 | +0.10 |
| 2017-08-01 | 113.10 | +0.40 |
| 2017-09-01 | 113.50 | +0.40 |
| 2017-10-01 | 113.90 | +0.40 |
| 2017-11-01 | 114.30 | +0.40 |
| 2017-12-01 | 114.40 | +0.10 |
| 2018-01-01 | 114.80 | +0.40 |
| 2018-02-01 | 115.10 | +0.30 |
| 2018-03-01 | 115.30 | +0.20 |
| 2018-04-01 | 115.50 | +0.20 |
| 2018-05-01 | 115.90 | +0.40 |
| 2018-06-01 | 116.30 | +0.40 |
| 2018-07-01 | 116.40 | +0.10 |
| 2018-08-01 | 116.50 | +0.10 |
| 2018-09-01 | 116.70 | +0.20 |
| 2018-10-01 | 117.50 | +0.80 |
| 2018-11-01 | 117.40 | -0.10 |
| 2018-12-01 | 117.40 | 0.00 |
| 2019-01-01 | 117.00 | -0.40 |
| 2019-02-01 | 117.20 | +0.20 |
| 2019-03-01 | 117.60 | +0.40 |
| 2019-04-01 | 118.20 | +0.60 |
| 2019-05-01 | 118.30 | +0.10 |
| 2019-06-01 | 118.20 | -0.10 |
| 2019-07-01 | 118.50 | +0.30 |
| 2019-08-01 | 118.60 | +0.10 |
| 2019-09-01 | 118.30 | -0.30 |
| 2019-10-01 | 118.80 | +0.50 |
| 2019-11-01 | 118.60 | -0.20 |
| 2019-12-01 | 119.00 | +0.40 |
| 2020-01-01 | 119.20 | +0.20 |
| 2020-02-01 | 118.60 | -0.60 |
| 2020-03-01 | 118.00 | -0.60 |
| 2020-04-01 | 116.60 | -1.40 |
| 2020-05-01 | 117.20 | +0.60 |
| 2020-06-01 | 117.50 | +0.30 |
| 2020-07-01 | 118.20 | +0.70 |
| 2020-08-01 | 118.40 | +0.20 |
| 2020-09-01 | 118.80 | +0.40 |
| 2020-10-01 | 119.40 | +0.60 |
| 2020-11-01 | 119.50 | +0.10 |
| 2020-12-01 | 120.00 | +0.50 |
| 2021-01-01 | 121.20 | +1.20 |
| 2021-02-01 | 122.00 | +0.80 |
| 2021-03-01 | 122.80 | +0.80 |
| 2021-04-01 | 124.00 | +1.20 |
| 2021-05-01 | 125.30 | +1.30 |
| 2021-06-01 | 126.20 | +0.90 |
| 2021-07-01 | 127.49 | +1.29 |
| 2021-08-01 | 128.60 | +1.12 |
| 2021-09-01 | 129.23 | +0.62 |
| 2021-10-01 | 130.04 | +0.82 |
| 2021-11-01 | 131.47 | +1.43 |
| 2021-12-01 | 132.26 | +0.78 |
| 2022-01-01 | 133.53 | +1.27 |
| 2022-02-01 | 134.77 | +1.24 |
| 2022-03-01 | 137.04 | +2.27 |
| 2022-04-01 | 137.77 | +0.74 |
| 2022-05-01 | 139.01 | +1.24 |
| 2022-06-01 | 140.27 | +1.26 |
| 2022-07-01 | 139.84 | -0.44 |
| 2022-08-01 | 139.75 | -0.08 |
| 2022-09-01 | 140.20 | +0.44 |
| 2022-10-01 | 140.68 | +0.48 |
| 2022-11-01 | 141.16 | +0.48 |
| 2022-12-01 | 140.69 | -0.47 |
| 2023-01-01 | 141.20 | +0.51 |
| 2023-02-01 | 141.13 | -0.07 |
| 2023-03-01 | 140.74 | -0.40 |
| 2023-04-01 | 140.93 | +0.20 |
| 2023-05-01 | 140.61 | -0.32 |
| 2023-06-01 | 140.70 | +0.08 |
| 2023-07-01 | 141.49 | +0.79 |
| 2023-08-01 | 142.41 | +0.92 |
| 2023-09-01 | 142.74 | +0.34 |
| 2023-10-01 | 142.25 | -0.50 |
| 2023-11-01 | 142.33 | +0.09 |
| 2023-12-01 | 142.16 | -0.17 |
| 2024-01-01 | 142.58 | +0.41 |
| 2024-02-01 | 143.36 | +0.78 |
| 2024-03-01 | 143.52 | +0.16 |
| 2024-04-01 | 144.20 | +0.68 |
| 2024-05-01 | 144.22 | +0.03 |
| 2024-06-01 | 144.87 | +0.65 |
| 2024-07-01 | 144.92 | +0.05 |
| 2024-08-01 | 145.41 | +0.49 |
| 2024-09-01 | 145.80 | +0.39 |
| 2024-10-01 | 146.29 | +0.49 |
| 2024-11-01 | 146.45 | +0.15 |
| 2024-12-01 | 147.05 | +0.60 |
| 2025-01-01 | 147.97 | +0.92 |
| 2025-02-01 | 148.23 | +0.26 |
| 2025-03-01 | 148.06 | -0.18 |
| 2025-04-01 | 147.66 | -0.40 |
| 2025-05-01 | 148.15 | +0.50 |
| 2025-06-01 | 148.39 | +0.24 |
| 2025-07-01 | 149.60 | +1.20 |
| 2025-08-01 | 149.33 | -0.27 |
| 2025-09-01 | 150.25 | +0.92 |
| 2025-10-01 | 150.44 | +0.19 |
| 2025-11-01 | 151.05 | +0.62 |
| 2025-12-01 | 151.59 | +0.54 |
| 2026-01-01 | 152.47 | +0.88 |
| 2026-02-01 | 153.20 | +0.74 |
| 2026-03-01 | 154.39 | +1.19 |
| 2026-04-01 | 156.06 | +1.67 |
| 2026-05-01 | 156.87 | +0.81 |
| 2026-06-01 | 156.68 | -0.19 |
| 2026-07-01 | 156.92 | +0.24 |
| 2026-08-01 | 157.66 | +0.74 |
| 2026-09-01 | 159.78 | +2.12 |

## Definition

USPPIFD is the producer price index for final demand, which measures the average change over time in the selling prices producers receive for output sold to final demand, recorded as the published level (November 2009 = 100) without any transformation and seasonally adjusted at source. USPPI records a different producer-price aggregate, the all-commodities basket taken without seasonal adjustment and anchored at 1982 = 100, so the two series differ at once in the basket they cover, in the seasonal convention, and in the reference base, and the final-demand level served here is not the seasonally adjusted counterpart of that all-commodities level.

As an aggregate price index, its level follows the base-period-quantity-weighted fixed-basket construction (Laspeyres 1871), which is paired with the comparison-period-weighted form (Paasche 1874).

The two forms are reconciled by the geometric ideal index that satisfies the time- and factor-reversal tests and by the expenditure-share-weighted log-change form (Fisher 1922; Törnqvist 1936), and whether a given formula is exact or superlative for an aggregator function is settled by the ideal-index literature (Diewert 1976).

The economic-theoretic object this index approximates is the expenditure or revenue ratio with the underlying program held fixed, and it sits within the cost-of-living tradition and the output-price reading systematized by the four approaches (Konüs 1939; Diewert 2002).

The axiomatic consistency a measured index satisfies is surveyed in the test-approach literature, which also sets out the substitution wedge between a fixed-base index and its theoretical target, and the upward fixed-base measurement bias this index inherits is catalogued alongside it (Balk 1995; Diewert 1998; Boskin et al. 1996).

The persistence the recorded number shows around its trend is interpreted within the inflation-measurement frame, and the level is read as the unrevised series whose growth rate is final-demand producer-price inflation (Cecchetti 1997; Stock and Watson 2007). The full price distribution is preserved rather than the supply-shock-robust central tendency of core inflation, and no such exclusion is applied to the level served here, the core counterpart being served separately as USCOREPPIFD (Eckstein 1981).

## Methodology

KRED applies no transformation to USPPIFD and stores the index exactly as compiled, performing no rescaling, deflating, smoothing, annualizing, or year-over-year differencing, and it applies no seasonal filter of its own, since the adjustment already belongs to the measurement basis by which the published level comes to exist. The methodology is therefore that of the underlying index-number construction rather than any KRED computation.

The level is built as a base-period-weighted aggregate of price relatives anchored at November 2009 = 100 (Laspeyres 1871), which is paired with the comparison-period-weighted form (Paasche 1874).

Reconciling the two through the time- and factor-reversal tests yields the ideal index (Fisher 1922), and the superlative index that is exact for a flexible aggregator, namely the log-change index and the family it belongs to, supplies the benchmark against which the fixed-basket formula is judged (Törnqvist 1936; Diewert 1976).

Which reversal and consistency properties a formula must hold is fixed by the axiomatic or test approach, which sits within the four-approach taxonomy (Balk 1995; Diewert 2002). The substitution and quality gap between the compiled fixed-base aggregate and the economic-theoretic index is quantified against the cost-of-living target (Konüs 1939; Diewert 1998; Boskin et al. 1996).

The persistence of the recorded level around its trend and its separation into trend and transitory component are left to the user, and the trend itself would be extracted by an unobserved-components decomposition rather than by anything performed here (Cecchetti 1997; Stock and Watson 2007).

For an analyst who summarizes the cross-sectional dispersion of the component price changes, the limited-influence estimators and the kurtosis-optimal trimmed mean describe how an underlying-inflation reading is obtained from the same recorded basket, and their derivation implies a heavier per-tail trim for producer prices than for consumer prices (Bryan and Cecchetti 1994; Bryan, Cecchetti, and Wiggins 1997). The exclusion route to the same concept deletes the volatile strata instead (Eckstein 1981). None of these constructions are applied to USPPIFD itself, which remains at the recorded level.

## Applications in Economics

As a producer-price gauge, USPPIFD carries the inflation signal for the prices producers receive on output sold to final demand, one stage before the consumer measure, and this distinction between upstream and downstream prices rests on the cost-of-living target and the index-number scaffold (Konüs 1939; Diewert 2002).

Because the recorded level embeds transitory supply shocks alongside the persistent trend, its interpretation rests on the trend-plus-noise-plus-bias decomposition and the unobserved-components trend extraction (Cecchetti 1997; Stock and Watson 2007).

Which part of the move is fundamental is framed by the long-run output-neutral notion of core inflation and by the original supply-shock-free concept (Quah and Vahey 1995; Eckstein 1981).

The asymmetry of the cross-sectional price-change distribution makes the headline final-demand move sensitive to a few large relative-price shocks, and because that asymmetry is handled by the limited-influence estimators, the analyst separates broad pipeline pressure from sectoral noise (Bryan and Cecchetti 1994; Bryan, Cecchetti, and Wiggins 1997).

The fixed-basket substitution and quality biases caution that the measured producer-price level overstates true price change (Boskin et al. 1996; Diewert 1998). The axiomatic reading and the base-weighted construction explain why the gauge moves mechanically with the chosen weights when sales composition shifts (Balk 1995; Laspeyres 1871), and because the level is seasonally adjusted at source its month-on-month change is read directly rather than only against a year-earlier comparison.

## Applications in Financial Markets

For market participants, USPPIFD is the upstream margin-and-inflation input that feeds breakeven and discount-rate views, and because producer-price inflation often leads the consumer measure, it is read through the underlying-inflation lens and the trend extraction (Cecchetti 1997; Stock and Watson 2007).

Pricing real and nominal claims requires separating the persistent producer-price trend from the transitory component, which the core-inflation estimators and the kurtosis-optimal trim provide (Bryan and Cecchetti 1994; Bryan, Cecchetti, and Wiggins 1997). The heavier producer-price trim reflects the fat tails of the input-price distribution, and the supply-shock-free concept and the output-neutral core define the signal a fixed-income desk discounts (Eckstein 1981; Quah and Vahey 1995).

Because the quoted level is a base-weighted fixed-basket aggregate reconciled by the ideal index and the log-change form (Laspeyres 1871; Paasche 1874; Fisher 1922; Törnqvist 1936), its mechanical sensitivity to weight choice and the substitution and quality biases matter for any contract or swap indexed to producer prices (Boskin et al. 1996; Diewert 1998).

The axiomatic constraints and the four-approach foundation tell a trader which index properties are preserved when the series is used to deflate revenues or to set escalation clauses (Balk 1995; Diewert 2002). An escalation contract references the specific aggregate and reference base it names, so the final-demand level served here is not interchangeable with the all-commodities level served as USPPI and the two must never be spliced into one history.

## Statistical Tests

USPPIFD is published as a seasonally-adjusted monthly index level of producer prices for final demand, and the statistical object is that published level, expected to be integrated of order one. The sample is 200 monthly observations spanning 2009-11-01 to 2026-06-01, and the unit-root triplet is fitted on the level with a constant and trend.

The augmented Dickey-Fuller regression of Dickey and Fuller (1979), in the lag-augmented form of Said and Dickey (1984) with lag length set as in Ng and Perron (2001), does not reject the unit root with a statistic of −0.7527 at p = 0.9694, the nonparametric test of Phillips and Perron (1988) concurs with a statistic of −0.6232 at p = 0.9777, and the stationarity-null test rejects trend stationarity with a statistic of 0.4639 at p < 0.01 (Kwiatkowski et al. 1992), so the three procedures concur on a clean I(1) classification. The GLS-detrended escalation of Elliott, Rothenberg, and Stock (1996) is reserved for ambiguous outcomes and is not required on this clean reading. The final-demand system begins only at the start of this sample, so 200 monthly observations are a short window for unit-root inference and the clean reading is correspondingly low-powered, which is stated rather than smoothed over.

On a clean integrated reading the level is not the stationary object, so the portmanteau and the break search are run on the first difference, since a level portmanteau reads the near-unit autocorrelation of a stochastic trend and a level mean-break search spuriously segments it (Perron 1989; Hamilton 2018; Bai and Perron 1998). The portmanteau statistic of Ljung and Box (1978), refining the form of Box and Pierce (1970), rejects the white-noise null on the differenced level at lags 12 and 24, with Q = 170.797 and Q = 184.098 and p = 0.000 in both cases. The multiple-break procedure of Bai and Perron (1998), computed by the dynamic-programming algorithm of Bai and Perron (2003), locates two mean shifts in the differenced series, at 2020-05-01 and 2022-10-01.

The index is seasonally adjusted at source, so under the platform convention whatever the seasonal battery detects is attributed to that adjustment and its revisions and is never presented as a KRED discovery (Ghysels and Osborn 2001). The seasonal-unit-root test of Hylleberg et al. (1990), with the monthly mechanics of Beaulieu and Miron (1993), is run on the level and rejects unit roots at the seasonal frequencies with a statistic of 990.4155 at p = 0.000, so any seasonal signal that survives the adjustment is deterministic rather than stochastic. The seasonal portmanteau leg is the cumulative statistic through lag 24 on the first difference, 184.098, numerically the lag-24 rung already reported rather than an independent second test, and it rejects the no-autocorrelation null at p = 0.000, while the joint test of monthly dummies on the first difference does not reject, with F = 0.5377 at p = 0.875882. The battery therefore disagrees with the adjusted designation the series carries, and the disagreement is stated as it stands, the series being neither declared seasonally clean nor credited with a newly found seasonal pattern. The reverse-null seasonal-stationarity test of Canova and Hansen (1995) is optional under the matrix and was not computed for this member.

## Frequently Asked Questions

### What does the US price panel include?

The United States price panel, comprising headline and core consumer and producer price indices, the personal consumption expenditure price indices, and three limited-influence inflation measures.

### Are the limited-influence inflation measures published as index levels?

No. They are published as twelve-month rates, so placing them on the same axis as the index levels in this group misreads both.

### Do the US limited-influence inflation gauges all measure the same thing?

No. They are separate estimands, differing in the underlying price index as well as in the rule for which part of the distribution to set aside. Proximity between any two of them is not corroboration and divergence is not an error in any.