Posts Tagged ‘mark carney’

file4741270417603The UK can be thankful it has experts at the Bank of England, because its seems that they are all that stand between the UK economy and recession.

Ever since the result of the EU referendum was revealed, economic forecasters have been warning of the possibility, and in many cases the probability, of a UK recession later this year.

Indeed, before the referendum, Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, warned of precisely that danger. But then Mark Carney, along with the rest of the economic forecasters, is a so called expert, and as we all know in this post referendum era, they know nothing.

But maybe, we can ignore experts and instead look at the data.

The monthly purchasing managers’ indices, or PMIs, covering UK manufacturing, construction and services are a reasonably reliable guide to the state of the economy at any one time. They are not perfect, but then again nothing is, and when they pick-up, the UK economy seems to pick-up soon afterwards and when they fall, the UK economy usually dips soon afterwards.

The latest batch have been released in the last few days, and they were awful.

The good news is that of the three PMIs, the first to see the light of day, the PMI covering manufacturing, wasn’t too bad. The index rose to 52.1, a five month high.  It was good to see the index rise, but even so, by historical standards, it was a pretty lacklustre score.

Bear in mind, that when it comes to PMIs, the magic number is 50. Any score over is meant to suggest expansion, any score below is meant to suggest contraction.

And that takes me to the PMI tracking construction. In June, the index crashed, falling from 51.2 in May, which itself was seen as pretty woeful, to 46.0, that’s the lowest reading since December 2012.

Then, finally we got the PMI for services. The Business Activity Index which experts tell us is the index that matters – not that they know anything – fell from 53.5 in May to 52.3 In June, the lowest reading since December 2012.

Collectively, and based on past findings, the three PMIs point to growth of just 0.1 per cent in Q2. A recession is defined as two successive quarters of negative growth, so if the PMIs are accurate, then the UK only needs to slow very slightly from the June level and it’s in recession territory.

Most worrying of all, the three PMIs relate to a period before the EU referendum.   It seems likely that the UK economy has slowed more than slightly since then.

But not all are fretting.

Take Standard and Poor’s. It has taken time off from downgrading the UK’s credit rating, to suggest that the UK will avoid recession. It said that the fall in the pound will support exporters, that the UK chancellor, a certain George Osborne, will relax on his austerity drive, but most important of all, the Bank of England will cut interest rates and go for another burst of QE.

But the story of pound devaluations giving the UK economy a lift is mixed. Besides, sterling’s falls against the euro have been more modest.

George has already confirmed that he will go back on his pre-election promise to create a budget surplus by the end of the decade.

But it seems to me that the fate of the UK economy in the short term, and whether it can avoid recession, is dependent on the experts at the Bank of England. Let’s hope that really do know something after all.

Article originally posted on Fresh Business Thinking:  http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/can-the-uk-avoid-a-brexit-recession/

350

As far as the Bank of England is concerned, the inflation panic is over for now. You may recall that many feared that one of Mark Carney’s first acts as governor of the Bank of England would be to put pen to paper and knock off a quick letter to George Osborne explaining why he was doing such a bad job at keeping inflation close to target. If inflation moves by more than one percentage point above the 2 per cent target, the UK’s most powerful central bank is required to write a letter of explanation to the chancellor.

As it turned out, inflation was 2.8 per cent in June – less than was feared and 0.2 percentage points down on the level that would have triggered a letter. This week the data for August was out, and this time inflation was just 2.7 per cent.

Will it continue to fall? Answer: unless something odd happens, surely yes. For one thing sterling is up, and recently rose to its highest level against the euro and dollar since January. For another thing, past movements in commodity prices suggest food inflation should fall sharply.

But thirdly, sheer maths seems to make it inevitable. Last autumn the UK saw prices rise quite sharply – up 1.5 per cent between August and December. Between May and August, prices rose by just 0.2 per cent. If the inflation rate we have seen over the last three months continues for the next three months, annual inflation will fall to just 1.3 per cent.

Now look at house prices and apply the same approach.

349

According to the ONS, house prices rose by 3.1 per cent in the year to July. But between August and December last year, houses prices fell slightly. If house prices rise at the same pace seen in the past five months over the next five months, then that will mean house price inflation will be running at 9.4 per cent by December.

Yesterday’s ‘Daily Mail’ headlined: “Property price bubble is a MYTH”, and described the latest 3.3 per cent house price inflation rate as “modest”. But simple maths shows why this will change very soon and a bubble is, in fact, being created in our midst.

© Investment & Business News 2013

347

George Osborne recently tried to assure us. “I don’t think in the current environment a house price bubble is going to emerge in 18 months or three years,” or so he told parliament this week. The Bank of England governor promises us he won’t let it happen – no bubble here, thank you, not today, tomorrow, or for as long as he is boss. Yet a poll among economists found that around half reckon a new bubble in the market is likely. The latest survey from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) may even provide evidence that such a bubble is underway right now. Why then, do we see such complacency? And how dangerous is it?

Actually the no bubble here argument seems to come from two different sides of the spectrum of economic thought. There are those, such as Capital Economics, who tend to be on the bearish side. House prices won’t shoot up in price, it suggests, because prospective new home owners can’t afford higher prices, and real wages are, after all, still falling. From the other side of the spectrum seems to come the view that there is no bubble because the very word bubble seems to suggest something negative. It may be true to say that this other side of the spectrum sees rising house prices as a good thing.

Okay, let’s look at the surveys. The latest Residential Market Survey from RICS may or may not provide evidence of a bubble but it certainly seems to provide evidence of a boom. The headline index, produced by taking the percentage number of surveyors who said prices fell in their region from the percentage number who said they rose, hit plus 40 – that’s for the month of August. It was the highest reading for the index since November 2006. The survey also found a rise in supply as more properties come on the market, but that the rise in demand was even greater.

As has been pointed out here before, the RICS index is not only a good guide to the housing market, it seems to provide a good barometer reading of the UK economy. The trajectory of history of this chart, and its correlation with the GDP a few months later, suggests the UK economy is set to see growth accelerate.

Now let’s turn to the other survey. This one comes courtesy of Reuters. A total of 29 economists were surveyed and asked about the prospects of another housing bubble. Nine said the chances are small, seven said the chances were even; 11 said likely; two said very likely.

Mark Carney suggests, however, that he won’t let it happen. He recently told the ‘Daily Mail’: “I saw the boom-bust cycle in the housing sector, the damage it can do, the length of time it took to repair.” These are encouraging words. He is saying trust me. Just bear in mind however that a housing bubble appears to have developed in Canada during his time as boss of the country’s central bank.

George Osborne turned his attention to the topic. On the subject of loan to value ratios, and the way in which first time buyers have had to find such enormous deposits in recent years, he said: “This change is not something we should welcome. It is both a market failure and a social problem – imagine if you’d had to find twice as big a deposit for your first home. 90 per cent and 95 per cent LTV mortgages are not exotic weapons of financial mass destruction. They are a regular part of a healthy mortgage market and an aspirational society.”

Here are two observations for you to ponder.

Observation number one is the British psyche. It is as if it is hardwired into the DNA of the British public. They are driven by fear to jump on the housing ladder, driven by more fear to rise up it, yet without questioning the view they believe that when the equity in their homes rises, they are better off, have more wealth, meaning they don’t need to save so much for their retirement. In short the UK housing market is prone to bubbles. The UK economy can often boom when house prices rise, and the reason is deep rooted in the British psyche. Whether this is good thing or not is open to debate. However, this point about the psychology does not seem to be understood by many economists, the markets or the government.

Observation number two: The new governor of India’s central bank Raghuram G Rajan used to be the chief economist of the IMF. Between his stint at the IMF and his new role in India, he wrote a book called ‘Fault Lines’. In it he suggested that rising house prices was the way in which democratically elected government were able to compensate their electorate for the fact that their wages had only risen very modestly. Mr Rajan was not suggesting a conspiracy; merely that the economic fix found by authorities proved to be the path of least resistance.

A boom in which the UK economy becomes more dynamic, maybe one in which QE funds investment into infrastructure, entrepreneurs, and education, creating a work force better equipped to cope with the innovation age we now live in, would be a wonderful thing. A boom based on rising house prices, however, would be a much easier thing to create, so no wonder Mr Osborne is so keen on the idea.

© Investment & Business News 2013

file4741270417603

The Bank of England says a rate hike is not likely until 2016; the markets are pricing in a 2015 hike. But might they rise even sooner than that?

These days it’s about unemployment. The Bank of England now says that for as long unemployment is above 7.0 per cent it won’t be upping rates. It says this is not likely to happen until 2016, that the markets are too optimistic, and that there is just a one in three chance of a rate hike sooner than that.

One of the lessons of the last few years is that when the economy is entering a downturn, economists and markets alike tend to underestimate the speed of contraction. Yet it seems equally clear that when things are improving, markets and economists tend to underestimate the speed of recovery.

The OECD has joined a long list of economic forecasters to revise its projections for UK growth upwards. The latest Purchasing Managers’ Indices (PMIs) from Markit/CIPS point to quarter on quarter growth of between 1 and 1.34 per cent in Q3. In fact, the latest composite PMI tracking construction, services and manufacturing has hit its highest level ever since records began in the late 1990s.

So if the UK economy is expanding so much faster than the wildest optimists forecast just a few months ago, is it not possible that UK unemployment will be back to 7 per cent faster than both the Bank of England and markets are predicting?

Yet more evidence to support this case comes from recent data from the ONS. It has recently begun experiments with month on month data on UK unemployment and recorded a fall from 7.8 to 7.4 per cent in July. A recent survey from the CIPD has its headline index tracking employers’ intentions to hire more staff hitting its highest level since 2008. The PMIs for July pointed to the fastest rate of job creation since 2007. And if we really do see the boom in residential construction that many are predicting, the effect on employment will surely be significant.

There are problems with these rosy forecasts, however.

For one thing, data on month on month changes in the jobs markets are highly volatile – the August data may see July improvement cancelled out. The PMI for August may have pointed to faster growth, but as far as job creation is concerned, it was nowhere near as positive as the July reading.

The big doubt related to what they call the productivity puzzle.

Until recently a characteristic of the UK economy has been disappointing growth in GDP, but surprisingly robust jobs figures given the state of the economy. Of course the mathematics of poor growth but reasonable job creation has meant poor productivity. Lots of theories abound for the poor growth in productivity, with one of the most popular being that employers have been choosing labour which has low upfront costs, over investment into capital equipment. In other words, they prefer staff, who they can always fire, to labour efficient machinery which requires a bit of upfront outlay, and cannot not be easily sold. Is it not possible that as the economy improves, so will productivity, and just as unemployment was relatively low in the recession, it will be relatively high in the recovery? If that is right, then interest rates may stay at half a per cent for some time yet – regardless of whether the recovery exceeds expectations.

© Investment & Business News 2013

file0002092489128

The threat to quantitative easing – or QE – is like a nuclear deterrent. If rates are forced up by the markets, we will use QE, suggests the Bank of England, and therefore there is no need for it, as markets price in what might happen if they don’t heed the bank’s words. That is the theory. It is as if Mark Carney bestrides the banking stage, with his finger always near the red button marked QE, and as a result the markets dare not release their venom, for fear that they will be caught out by detonation. The reaility seems quite different, and yesterday Mark Carney had another go; putting on his poker face and staring at the markets: “Go ahead,” he seemed to be saying, “make my day.” Alas, the markets are still not buying it.

The markets have been pushing up yields. The yield on UK government ten year bonds has risen from a low of around 1.5 per cent a year ago, to 2.8 per cent at the time of writing. The Bank of England says rates are going to stay low until 2016, but the markets are far from convinced.

It is presented as bad news but actually it may be quite the opposite. The Bank of England says rates may rise once unemployment falls to 7 per cent, providing inflation does not show signs of rising sharply. The markets are saying they think this will happen in 2015; the Bank of England is saying 2016. So to try to convince the markets, Mark Carney has to try to talk down the prospects of the UK recovery without – and get this for an impossible mission – dampening confidence.

Yesterday Mark Carney spoke. In fact he was speaking at the East Midlands Conference Centre. So that’s quite a journey for Mr Carney, from Canada to the East Midlands Conference Centre – whatever next, the Andromeda galaxy perhaps?

Give the new governor at the Bank of England credit, he was transparency itself. He said: “Our forward guidance provides you with certainty that interest rates will not rise too soon. Exactly how long they stay low will depend on the progress of the recovery and in particular how quickly unemployment comes down. What matters is that rates won’t go up until jobs and incomes are really growing.” He also said: “We will have to see the rate of unemployment, currently 7.8 per cent, fall at least to a threshold of 7 per cent before even beginning to consider whether to raise Bank Rates.” Note that: even considering raising rates.

He then went at great lengths to spell it out: getting unemployment down to 7 per cent will be tough. So why then are markets pushing up rates? Mr Carney said one possibility is that: “Markets think that unemployment will come down to 7 per cent more quickly than we do. Since the aim of our policy is to secure recovery as quickly as possible, that would be welcome. But policy is built not on hope, but on expectation. And we estimate there is only a 1 in 3 chance of unemployment coming down that quickly.”

So note that: he is saying there is a one in three chance that rates will rise before 2016.

Finally, he made a reference to the US. When the Fed revealed plans to start reducing QE soon, many assumed the Bank of England would follow – leading to yields on bonds rising, and fast. You may be interested to know, that for the last three months, the yield on US government bonds has been higher than the UK equivalent. This changed this week, however, as markets rushed to safety over fears of a Syrian conflict escalating. On the subject of US and UK rates, Mr Carney said: “While much has been made of the special relationship between the US and UK, it is not so special that the possibility of a reduction in the pace of additional stimulus in the US warrants a current reduction in the degree of monetary stimulus in the UK.”

So it’s all pretty clear. The Bank of England has no plan to up rates soon. The markets responded by pushing up market rates. Soon after Mr Carney sat down yesterday, the yields on UK government bonds rose.

The markets are not buying it. Carney may yet be forced to push the ‘more QE button’ after all – it is just that the decision is not just his. Carney has a politburo – or a Monetary Policy Committee – that must vote to extend QE. And the markets don’t believe Carney’s colleagues will allow him to press the button.

© Investment & Business News 2013

file0001539596844

It is the new way of doing central banking. It is called forward guidance. It means that central bankers are telling us what they are going to do in the future under different circumstances. In one fell swoop they have done away with an industry; an industry called predicting interest rates. It has become a game, and in some cases a business. The media fill their pages with predictions on which way interest rates are going next. Now we know, if the data says one thing, rates will go in a certain direction. Yet here we are, just a few weeks into the era of forward guidance, and already cracks are appearing. As for the markets, rather than becoming more stable and predictable, they have become more nervous than ever.

“I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you’ve probably misunderstood what I’ve said,” or so once and somewhat famously said the former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan. This was the era when Mr Greenspan was set on a pedestal so high that it is a wonder he didn’t need an oxygen mask and climbing ropes. What the markets really loved was the way in which Mr Greenspan had a veneer of knowing something they didn’t know; of having a plan – a cunning plan if you will – that always worked the way it was supposed to.

The finance crisis of 2008, and the fact that we appeared to miss a meltdown in capitalism by a whisker did leave Mr Greenspan’s reputation a little in tatters. Ben Bernanke, his replacement at the Fed, made a great play of saying what he thought; of letting us in, as it were, on his rationale. At first it didn’t go down well. The markets concluded he didn’t really seem to know what he was doing. It is the tragedy of the modern age. All of us stumble around in the dark most of the time, but we just don’t like to admit to it. And when our leaders admit to it, we think they are weak and uncertain.

These days, however, Ben’s stock is high. It was he, first among the central bankers, who came up with the idea of forward guidance, when he revealed that the Fed would keep pumping money into the economy via QE for as long as unemployment remained high. Now they are all at it. The Bank of England – under the leadership of Mark Carney – is now saying that rates will stay at half a per cent as long as unemployment is over 7 per cent.

It is just that the minutes from the latest Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting revealed that one member of the committee – Martin Weale – voted against the policy. It was not so much the idea of forward guidance he was against, it was the perceived timing. He appeared to fear that the 7 per cent target was too loose. Er, or maybe you could say that actually he was against forward guidance, because he wants a policy that one might describe as always flexible.

His dissent is important, because it rather put a question mark over the viability of the policy. You can interpret the Bank of England as saying if the economy does this, we will definitely do that, unless, that is, we change our mind. There are also hints that UK unemployment is set to fall much more rapidly than has been assumed. A survey from the CIPD and the latest Purchasing Managers’ Index both point to positive changes in UK unemployment in the pipeline. See: The UK jobs market boost . This has led to speculation that rates might be rising much sooner than the Bank of England has been suggesting.

It appears that the industry that grew up predicting what the MPC might do next has changed into one predicting what unemployment will do. If nothing else, jobs have become a more important economic indicator – and maybe that is no bad thing; after all common sense suggests it should be the most important indicator.

In the US, recent data has pointed to a sharp improvement in the jobs outlook, with the latest survey suggesting US unemployment is now at its lowest level since October 2007.

So let’s review the situation. The signs, both in the form of hard data and from surveys, point to a labour market that is improving faster than many had dared to hope for. That means monetary policy might be tightened faster than many had feared. The markets are spooked by it all. ‘Better than they dared hope for’ jobs data turned out to be less of a boon than ‘rates rising faster than they had feared’, – at least that is what they are saying at the moment.

But then the markets are fickle and how they react one day can be quite different on another. If you think the markets are making themselves clear, it probably means you “misunderstood what they are saying”.

© Investment & Business News 2013

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

If only interest rates were higher; it’s the lament of savers everywhere. Then they could enjoy a nice little income from hard-won savings. Some don’t merely sigh; they grimace; they are angry. They worked hard all their life. They saved hard, putting off holidays, sacrificed transitory pleasures today for security, and slowly built a nest egg. But, thanks to record low interest rates, and that policy straight from the devil’s workshop called quantitative easing, central banks seem to want to punish the prudent and reward the feckless. You can feel their anger, and you may share their anger. It is just that they are wrong. And they are wrong for a simple reason.

Dr Ros Altmann is very clever indeed. Until recently she was director general of SAGA, and is generally thought of as something of a guru; an expert on all things pensions. But she is especially famous for her hugely critical views relating to the Bank of England’s recent monetary policy. Her argument runs likes this: low interest rates penalise savers, they penalise those who are retired, and those who are trying to find a way to fund their retirement. She rarely misses an opportunity to slate the government and its central bank whenever it does anything to advance the course of low interest rates. If the anti-quantitative easing (QE) lobby has a face, it is that of Ms Altmann.

But think about this for a moment. If the economy is growing, if real incomes are rising, and if productivity is getting better all the time, then surely we can afford higher interest rates.

Or consider this. Why do we need savings? Across the global economy savings equal investment – they have to, it is a matter of definition. GDP equals consumption plus investment. Savings equals income minus consumption. Income equals GDP. For the economy as a whole, we need savings to fund investment. If we all try to save more, without a corresponding rise in investment, the result is an immediate fall in GDP.

So we save to fund investment. Does that not mean that in the long run, the reward for savings should be a function of the return on investment?

If our savings fund very low risk investment, that generates very little in the way of returns. Why do we think we should get a higher interest rate?

Consider the economy. It has had a very poor few years. There has been no shortage of money, no shortage of savings, but the money has found its way into bonds, and into mortgages. What money has not done – or at least has not done enough – is find its way into more risky assets.

“QE has hastened the demise of our pensions system,” said Dr Altmann earlier this year. She continued: “As scheme deficits rise, their sponsor company’s money is being forced into the scheme rather than expanding or modernising the company itself – thereby increasing the risk that the company will fail and the scheme will be forced into the PPF, with all members’ pensions reduced.”

She makes a good point. The return on bonds is incredibly low. Pension schemes need to generate a certain proportion of their income from bonds, and since bonds pay out such low yields that means pension schemes need to buy even more bonds to meet regulatory requirements.

The truth is that a good argument could be made to say that savers deserve a higher return on the money if their savings yielded better results, created more wealth. Borrowers could afford to pay higher interest rates if, as a result of their borrowing, they made more profits, and enjoyed higher income.

This connection between savings, investment and the return on savings versus the return on investment gets forgotten, overlooked.

It would be a good thing if interest rates rose, but only if they rose because all of a sudden savings were being used to fund innovation, and as result created more wealth.

This, of course, is why savers need to re-evaluate, and start looking at putting their savings in assets other than low risk, low yielding bonds.

© Investment & Business News 2013