Why US Consumer Confidence Hit 91.7 in October: 3 Takeaways from the Latest Data

 

The Conference Board reported on October 27 that its October Consumer Confidence Index rose to 91.7 (1985=100), up 7.5 points from a revised September reading of 84.2. Economists had expected the index to fall to somewhere between 80.4 and 81.0, putting the actual result roughly 11 points above forecast.

 

Within the same report, however, every forward-looking measure of purchase intention declined. On a six-month moving average basis, plans to buy autos and homes both slipped, planned durable goods spending fell across the board, and electronics including smartphones, personal computers, laptops and tablets fell by more than 1%. Conference Board economist Fergus McCormick put it directly: consumers "planned less spending on services and durable goods over the next six months."

 

The Conference Board supplied its own reason for the confidence rebound, and that reason explains the apparent contradiction. McCormick said the recovery "was in line with retail gasoline prices easing from September to October." What drove the jump, in other words, was short-term relief in one visible price rather than any improved judgement about income or the economy. Twelve-month inflation expectations, meanwhile, remained elevated at 5.8%.

 

Two further details are worth knowing before citing the headline figure. The Expectations Index rose 6.9 points to 72.6 yet remains below the threshold of 80 that the Conference Board treats as usually signalling a recession ahead. And the University of Michigan's October sentiment index, revised to 48, sits slightly below September's 48.1, pointing the opposite way.

 

 

 

The confidence index rose to 91.7, roughly 11 points above forecast. Economists had expected a decline to between 80.4 and 81.0, against an actual month-over-month gain of 7.5 points.

 

September's original print was 81.9, later revised up to 84.2. Measured against the originally published figure, October's gain is 9.8 points rather than 7.5.

 

The Expectations Index at 72.6 remains below the 80 threshold. The Conference Board's long-standing convention treats readings below 80 as usually signalling a recession ahead, against September's 65.7.

 

The Conference Board attributes the rebound to falling gasoline prices rather than an improved outlook. Its economist stated explicitly that the recovery was in line with retail gasoline prices easing from September to October.

 

Twelve-month inflation expectations stand at 5.8%. The report describes this as remaining elevated after declining in October, with the economist also citing persistent inflation eroding purchasing power.

 

Every purchase plan measure declined. Auto and home buying plans slipped, planned durable goods spending fell across the board, and electronics fell by more than 1%.

 

The University of Michigan's survey for the same month points the other way. Its October index, revised to 48, sits slightly below September's 48.1, where economists had expected no revision.

 

 

 

The September Present Situation Index and labor differential above are derived here from the published changes rather than figures the Conference Board published directly. The labor differential is the 26.7% saying jobs are plentiful minus the 21.4% saying they are hard to get.

 

Three basis issues need establishing before citing this release.

 

First, the base. September's original print was 81.9, subsequently revised up to 84.2. October's gain therefore depends on which base is used: 7.5 points against the revised 84.2, or 9.8 points against the 81.9 the market actually saw at the time. Both are correct but describe different things, and the revision itself of 2.3 points is substantial for an index of this volatility.

 

Second, the Expectations Index remains below the warning line. The Conference Board's long-standing convention treats an Expectations Index below 80 as usually signalling a recession ahead. October's 72.6 marks a clear recovery from September's 65.7 but stays below that threshold. Most coverage omitted this. Note that the Conference Board did not cite the threshold in this release either, and the convention above comes from its consistent formulation in prior releases.

 

Third, the survey window ran October 1 to 21 with a cutoff of October 21, making these preliminary results. Anything that changed in prices or events during late October falls outside this reading, and the figure itself may be revised, as September's was by 2.3 points.

 

 

This is what this article considers most worth knowing before citing the 91.7.

 

 

The two indices use different base periods and scales, so their absolute levels are not comparable and only direction is. And in October the directions diverged: the Conference Board rose sharply while Michigan slipped slightly. Michigan's October final was also revised up from a 46.3 preliminary to 48, where economists had expected no revision.

 

The divergence stems from what each survey weights. The Conference Board's questionnaire leans toward assessments of employment and business conditions, while Michigan's leans toward personal financial circumstances and inflation perceptions. This month the labor differential improved 2.4 points to positive 5.3% while inflation expectations stayed at 5.8%, a combination that would lift the former while suppressing the latter.

 

The practical implication for readers is that a single figure of 91.7 should not be taken as establishing that US consumers have turned optimistic. The other major survey for the same month gave no such signal, and the disagreement itself carries more information than either number: it locates this month's improvement in assessments of employment and business conditions rather than in households' sense of their own finances.

 

 

Placing the Conference Board's own attribution alongside inflation expectations dissolves the apparent contradiction.

 

Confidence rose because gasoline prices fell. McCormick's formulation was that the recovery "was in line with retail gasoline prices easing from September to October." Gasoline is the price American households perceive most directly and most often, with forecourt signage visible weekly, which gives it influence over sentiment measures far exceeding its weight in the consumption basket.

 

Purchase plans fell because price levels and inflation expectations did not improve. Twelve-month inflation expectations remained at 5.8%, and McCormick cited persistent inflation and higher price levels eroding consumers' purchasing power. In open-ended responses consumers "continued to express frustration with rising costs," specifically mentioning prices, food and grocery costs, and oil and diesel prices.

 

The decisive point is that the two operate on different time horizons. A confidence measure reflects how things feel now, while purchase plans reflect judgements about costs and income over the next six months. One month of easing gasoline prices improved the former without changing the latter.

 

A longer horizon confirms this. Per third-party compilation, US gasoline averaged $4.355 per gallon in September 2026 against $3.166 a year earlier, a rise of roughly 37.6%. So October's easing occurred on top of a price level still roughly a third higher year over year. Month-over-month relief suffices to improve sentiment without changing a household's expectation of future costs, which is precisely how a confidence rebound and falling purchase plans occur together.

 

 

 

One exception within services spending plans deserves note: movies, theatre, live entertainment and sporting events were the only categories not declining. That is a familiar pattern under cost pressure, where relatively inexpensive experiential spending holds up better than durable goods.

 

The top five service categories were restaurants, bars and take-out; streaming, internet and mobile; utilities; health care; and beauty and personal care. Beauty and personal care fell from third place to fifth, a concrete signal of discretionary downgrading within this month's detail.

 

 

The employment data points two ways internally. The labor differential improved 2.4 points to positive 5.3%, meaning 26.7% of respondents called jobs plentiful against 21.4% calling them hard to get, which is the result from a structured question. But in open-ended write-in responses, mentions of jobs and employment increased.

 

Put differently, respondents' assessments improved when asked directly about the labour market, while more of them raised employment when free to say what concerned them. Divergence of this kind between a structured question and an open-ended response usually indicates that the improvement is not firmly grounded. For direct data on labour demand, see our earlier analysis of job openings data.

 

Note also that mentions of war and conflict declined for a second consecutive month while remaining elevated.

 

 

For retail and discretionary consumption, this release reads as a negative signal rather than a positive one. What determines sales over coming quarters is purchase plans rather than sentiment measures, and every purchase plan measure declined this month, with durable goods and electronics most clearly. Improving sentiment unaccompanied by improving purchase intention does not usually convert into actual sales. For how consumer spending has actually behaved in the data, see our compilation on retail sales and consumer spending.

 

For payments companies, transaction value and consumption quantity need separating. Payments volume is measured in transaction value, so price movements in categories such as fuel affect the metric directly without corresponding to changes in consumption quantity. With fuel prices still roughly a third higher year over year, part of any payments volume growth reflects price rather than real consumption growth, and that part recedes as fuel prices ease.

 

For rate expectations, the 5.8% inflation expectation matters more than the 91.7 confidence reading. Consumer inflation expectations are among the variables monetary policy attends to, and that figure remained elevated after declining in October. The Federal Open Market Committee met on October 27 and 28 with the rate decision unpublished as of this article's verification point, so this release's actual bearing on the policy path awaits the decision and the accompanying commentary.

 

For risk assets including crypto, transmission is indirect. Consumer confidence data does not act directly on crypto markets; its influence runs through rate expectations, where inflation expectations and consumption data jointly shape the market's reading of the policy path, which in turn shapes the broad pricing environment for risk assets. Every link in that chain carries uncertainty, so no single data point supports a directional judgement. To track how prices actually respond around macro releases, view live BTC/USDT quotes and depth on MEXC.

 

 

For James Mitchell, the way this release is being reported almost guarantees a misled reader, and the error lies in treating a sentiment measure as a demand measure.

 

The 91.7 did come in roughly 11 points above forecast, and the Conference Board's own stated reason is gasoline prices easing from September to October. Note how specific that attribution is: not an improved economic outlook, not strengthened employment confidence, but a month of relief in one visible price. Gasoline is the price American households see most frequently, posted at forecourts weekly, which gives it influence over sentiment measures far beyond its weight in the consumption basket.

 

Within the same report, every forward-looking measure of purchase intention fell: autos and homes slightly, durable goods across the board, electronics by more than 1%, services plans generally lower. The Conference Board's economist stated plainly that consumers planned less spending on services and durable goods over the next six months. That is not a contradiction but two measures on different time horizons correctly describing the same situation: the cost of filling the tank improved this month, and the judgement about costs over the next six months did not. Twelve-month inflation expectations still at 5.8% are the evidence.

 

One figure makes this concrete. Per third-party compilation, US gasoline averaged $4.355 per gallon in September 2026 against $3.166 a year earlier, up roughly 37.6%. So October's easing happened at a level still a third higher than a year ago. A household can simultaneously feel that filling up got a little cheaper this month and that fuel has cost far more this year than last; the first improves sentiment, the second decides whether to replace the car or the phone. That is the entire mechanism.

 

Two details deserve more attention than they received, and both went largely unreported.

 

The first is that the Expectations Index at 72.6 remains below 80. The Conference Board's long-standing convention treats readings below that level as usually signalling a recession ahead, and this month it recovered from 65.7 to 72.6, a good direction still inside the warning zone. The Conference Board did not cite the threshold this time and most coverage did not either, so a fact about remaining inside recessionary signal territory was buried under a headline about a large beat.

 

The second is that the University of Michigan survey for the same month pointed the other way, with its October index revised to 48 against September's 48.1. The two surveys use different base periods with incomparable scales, but direction is comparable, and the directions conflict. The reason is emphasis: the Conference Board weights assessments of employment and business conditions more heavily, Michigan personal finances and inflation perceptions. This month the labor differential improved while inflation expectations stayed high, a combination that would lift the first and suppress the second. The disagreement between the two carries more information than either number, because it locates where the improvement happened and where it did not.

 

One last detail strikes me as particularly telling. The labor differential improved 2.4 points, yet in open-ended write-in responses more people raised jobs and employment. Assessments improved when asked directly and concerns rose when free to speak. Divergence of that kind between structured and open-ended responses usually means the improvement is not firmly grounded. It belongs alongside details like beauty and personal care dropping from third to fifth in service spending priorities: things a single headline figure cannot cover. For anyone trying to judge where consumption goes over coming quarters, that detail is considerably more useful than the 91.7.

 

 

 

The Conference Board reported an October Consumer Confidence Index of 91.7 (1985=100), up 7.5 points from a revised September reading of 84.2. Economists had expected a decline to between 80.4 and 81.0, placing the actual result roughly 11 points above forecast. The survey window ran October 1 to 21, making these preliminary results.

 

 

The Conference Board attributes it to falling gasoline prices. Economist Fergus McCormick said the recovery "was in line with retail gasoline prices easing from September to October." Gasoline is the price American households perceive most frequently, giving it influence over sentiment measures beyond its weight in the consumption basket. Note that this attribution points to a month of relief in one visible price rather than any improved judgement about the economy or income.

 

 

Because the two measures reflect different time horizons. A confidence measure captures how things feel now, while purchase plans capture judgements about costs and income over the next six months. One month of easing gasoline prices improved the former, but twelve-month inflation expectations remained at 5.8% and the Conference Board's economist cited persistent inflation and higher price levels eroding purchasing power. On a six-month moving average basis, auto and home buying plans slipped while planned durable goods spending fell across the board, with electronics down more than 1%.

 

 

Yes. September's original print of 81.9 was revised up to 84.2, a revision of 2.3 points. October's gain therefore depends on the base: 7.5 points against the revised 84.2, or 9.8 points against the 81.9 the market saw at the time. These October figures are preliminary and may likewise be revised later.

 

 

The sub-index rose 6.9 points from September's 65.7 but remains below 80. The Conference Board's long-standing convention treats an Expectations Index below 80 as usually signalling a recession ahead. Note that the Conference Board did not cite that threshold in this release, the convention above coming from its consistent formulation in prior releases, and most coverage did not mention it either. The sub-index is based on consumers' short-term outlook for income, business and labour market conditions.

 

 

It points the other way. The University of Michigan's October sentiment index was revised to 48 from a 46.3 preliminary, slightly below September's 48.1, where economists had expected no revision. The two indices use different base periods and scales, so absolute levels are not comparable and only direction is. The divergence reflects differing emphasis, with the Conference Board's questionnaire leaning toward employment and business conditions and Michigan's toward personal financial circumstances and inflation perceptions.

 

 

Planned durable goods spending fell across the board, with electronics including smartphones, personal computers, laptops and tablets down more than 1%, while auto and home buying plans slipped. Services spending plans were generally lower, with the sole exception of movies, theatre, live entertainment and sporting events. The top five service categories were restaurants, bars and take-out; streaming, internet and mobile; utilities; health care; and beauty and personal care, with beauty and personal care falling from third place to fifth.

 

 

The 5.8% twelve-month inflation expectation warrants more attention than the 91.7 confidence reading, since consumer inflation expectations are among the variables monetary policy attends to and that figure remained elevated after declining in October. The Federal Open Market Committee met on October 27 and 28 with the rate decision unpublished as of this article's verification point, so the release's actual bearing on the policy path awaits the decision and the accompanying commentary.

 

 

The information above is provided for general macroeconomic and market information only and does not constitute investment advice, financial advice, legal advice, tax advice or a recommendation to buy or sell securities. The data cited comes from the Conference Board's October consumer confidence survey released on October 27, 2026 and related public reporting, verified on October 28, 2026. These consumer confidence figures are preliminary results from a survey window of October 1 to 21 with a cutoff of October 21; changes after that window fall outside the reading and the figures may be revised subsequently, as September's were from an originally published 81.9 to 84.2. Figures identified as derived here, including the September Present Situation Index and labor differential, are calculated from the published changes rather than published directly by the Conference Board. The convention that an Expectations Index below 80 usually signals a recession ahead comes from the Conference Board's consistent formulation in prior releases; the organisation did not cite that threshold in this release. The Conference Board and University of Michigan surveys use different base periods and scales, so their absolute levels are not comparable and only direction is, and the two pointed in opposite directions in October. Gasoline price comparisons year over year come from third-party compilation rather than the Conference Board release. Consumer confidence and purchase plans are survey measures reflecting what respondents state rather than actual expenditure, and do not constitute a forecast of future consumption data. The Federal Open Market Committee's rate decision was unpublished as of this article's verification point and no prediction of its outcome is made here. Transmission between macroeconomic data and risk asset prices is indirect and subject to multiple uncertainties, so no single data point supports a directional judgement. Crypto asset prices are highly volatile and leveraged products can produce losses exceeding the initial outlay. Readers should consult the original data release before making any decision, judge against their own financial circumstances, investment objectives and risk tolerance, and consult a qualified professional where appropriate. The MEXC Crypto Pulse team accepts no liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from the use of this information.

 

 

James Mitchell specializes in technical analysis, market trends, and trading strategies for both Bitcoin and altcoins. Based in London, he has over 10 years of experience in financial markets. Before joining MEXC Learn, James worked as a senior analyst at a leading European investment firm, where he developed expertise in risk management and quantitative trading. His transition to cryptocurrency markets began in 2017, and he has since become recognized for his data-driven approach. He holds a Master's degree in Financial Economics from the London School of Economics. His analytical approach combines traditional technical analysis with on-chain metrics to provide readers with actionable insights.

 

Areas of Expertise: Technical Analysis, Market Trends and Cycles, Trading Strategies, Bitcoin and Altcoin Analysis, Risk Management.

 

 

 

Want the fastest access to MEXC's latest updates? Join our official Telegram group now!

MEXC Platform: Download App | Zero Fee Trading | Buy USDT Now

Join MEXC Community: X (Twitter) | Telegram | Discord

Get Insights: MEXC Learn | Terms of Service | MEXC Blog | MEXC News

Account Verification: Understand KYC | How to Complete KYC

External Content Platforms: Substack | Medium | Paragraph | LinkedIn | X(News)