Components of the CPIF with the lowest volatility 1995-2019 Sub-index of the CPIF Standard Average  Weight  deviation Rent  1.0  1.9  9.6  Alcohol, restaurant visits  1.2  2.3  1.0  Personal hygiene (services)  1.3  3.3  1.8  Garage costs  1.3  2.1  0.2  Water and sewerage, refuse collection,  1.3  2.7  1.0  Food (outside the home)  1.4  2.6  5.4  Lottery, pools  20  1.4  1.3  1.1  Alcohol, purchased in store  1.5  1.1  2.1  Fizzy drinks, light beer  1.5  0.9  0.8  Entertainment and recreation  1.6  2.0  3.5  Personal hygiene (goods)  1.7  1.0  1.3  Capital stock 21  1.9  4.6  3.3  Funeral, home insurance, bank, education  2.0  2.8  2.6  Diverse leisure goods  2.0  0.3  0.5  Furniture, carpeting and lighting  2.0  0.2  2.0  Sources: Statistics Sweden and the Riksbank. Note. The calculations are made using monthly data expressed an annual percentage change. The weights for all groups included in the calculation add up to 100. Figure 6 shows the fifteen components with the highest volatility according to the procedure above, aggregated into an index (see dark blue line). The total weight of these goods and services in the CPIF is close to 17 per cent.
The new method, where one follows the prices on a top list for books sold, probably gives greater variations than the old method where one followed the prices on a number of indicator books. The top list changes every month, while the indicator list changed less often. Sales are now captured to a greater extent than before. 27 Foreign air travel was not included in Table 1, but a new method of measuring prices has contributed to a new seasonal pattern with a higher volatility in recent years. 14 [19]  Underlying measures and actual monetary policy The different measures of underlying inflation give us the opportunity to approach the existing data and view it from different angles. But in the next step, the measures will be used by policymakers responsible for monetary policy. Here a conflict arises between on the one hand bringing forward various underlying measures and on the other hand being clear and transparent about the objective of monetary policy. The conflict become particularly clear if one chooses to use measures of underlying inflation that systematically deviate from the actual rate of inflation. Or, in other words, the poorer the measure of underlying measure of inflation, the greater the communication challenges. I would say that we have seen clear examples of this conflict in recent years: In June 2018, analysts at Handelsbanken Capital Markets considered it necessary to deny that the Riksbank had changed its target variable in a newsletter.