The Bank of England will be very worried about the weakness in consumer credit

This afternoon will see yet another bond buying operation from the Bank of England as another £1.473 billion is purchased. Tuesday is what I call heavy-duty QE ( Quantitative Easing) as it purchases longer dated maturities and indeed regularly buys what are called ultra longs as the maturities in the UK bond or Gilt market go out as far as 2071. That length of purchase is unusual as for example the ECB only purchases out to 30 years so 2050 at the moment. This adds to the £1.473 billion bought yesterday and it will be the same tomorrow as the week in this regard ends early.

I get asked regularly how they pay for this? In line with today’s theme the money is created by the Bank of England which then uses it to buy the bonds. Thus the money supply is increased and this week it will be increased by just over £4.4 billion from this route. In one sense this is a pure profit for the Bank of England and is what is called seigniorage except in the past it was the profit on issuing actual notes and coins whereas now it is electronic and thus costs very little.

There is a nice little earner for the Bank of England as it charges Bank Rate on this to the Special Purpose Vehicle set up to hold the bonds so ironically cutting it to 0.1% reduces its profit on this. You can see that the accounting method and I stress this is simply an accounting method did not think negative interest-rates were going to happen as they will be booking a loss in that eventuality!

So the money supply has been expanded via this route by £672 billion in total or in the recent phase £237 billion as of the end of last week. This goes into the narrow money supply which used to be called “high powered money”. I point that out because in the credit crunch era it has proved to be anything but that because as they have pumped up the money supply the usage of it it what is called Velocity has fallen. In fact Velocity has at times fallen faster than the money supply has risen but  central banks turn a Nelsonian blind eye to that reality. They are consistent in preferring theory to reality.

There will have been smaller influences on the money supply from the purchases of Corporate Bonds ( £19 billion) and the Covid Corporate Financing Faciity ( £16.4 billion). However not all the CCFF will count as an increase in the money supply as some of the commercial paper bought will already be counted.

Today’s Data

This will have caused angst at the Bank of England and you will quickly see why.

Overall, private sector companies and households reduced their holdings of money in August, following 5 months of unusually strong deposit flows. Sterling money (known as M4ex) fell by £0.9 billion in August, down from an increase of £25.6 billion in July.

The private sector made a net repayment of loans in August. Sterling net lending to private sector companies and households, or M4Lex, was -£3.9 billion, following a net repayment of £0.5 billion in July.

Yes that is a fall and may be the reason we have had more hints from the Bank of England about negative interest-rates. It found itself “pushing on a string” in August where it was pumping up the narrow measure of the money supply by around £20 billion or so, But we and by this I mean as individuals and businesses had less demand for money and in fact so much less demand that the total fell. Actually in terms of the specifics it was the financial sector other than banks which drove the fall as what were presumably pension funds and insurance companies wanted £6.1 billion less.

In fact monthly money supply numbers are very erratic so it is better to take July and August together where we see the money supply rose by £25 billion which is still less than the Bank of England narrow money push. Just to complete the set we have what looks like another fall in Velocity or as I prefer to put it a fall in money demand. This is a little awkward as for broad money we are discussing money demand when it is called money supply. A loan only exists when someone or thing asks for it and is approved.

Unsecured Credit

This will also have unsettled the Bank of England.

Net consumer credit borrowing remained positive in August at £0.3 billion. This was a little weaker than borrowing of £1.1 billion in July, which was in line with the average net flow in the 18 months to February 2020. These increases followed net repayments of £3.9 billion per month, on average, between March and June. The annual growth rate fell slightly to -3.9%, down from -3.7% in July: this was a new series low since it began in 1994.

I mean with borrowing of this sort so low how will the banks make a profit! More seriously there is a hint of consumers battening down the hatches from the repayment numbers.

Gross borrowing was £21.3 billion, up from £20.9 billion in July and compared to an average of £25.5 billion in the six months to February 2020. Repayments increased to £20.6 billion from £19.6 billion in July.

In terms of a breakdown in the borrowing it was pretty even this month but as you can see below the pandemic decline has essentially been a credit card thing.

Net borrowing on credit cards was £0.2 billion in August (down from £0.6 billion), while net borrowing of other forms of consumer credit was £0.1 billion, down from £0.5 billion in July. The annual growth rates both remained negative, at -10.4% and -0.9% respectively.

Mortgages

Whoever had the job of presenting the Bank of England morning meeting will have been wise to have started with these numbers today. After all the Governor may have a short attention span and may remember him or her favourably.

The mortgage market continued to show more signs of recovery in August. On net, households borrowed an additional £3.1 billion secured on their homes, following borrowing of £2.9 billion in July. Mortgage borrowing troughed at £0.5 billion in April, and is still a little below the average of £4.2 billion in the six months to February 2020.

A career enhancing vibe can be continued by emphasising this.

The number of mortgage approvals for house purchase continued increasing sharply in August, to 84,700 from 66,300 in July . This was the highest number of approvals since October 2007.

Whilst relegating the next bit to when a liveried bar(wo)man is refreshing the Governor’s coffee cup and thereby distracting him.

 but it only partially offsets weakness seen between March and June. In total, there have been 418,000 approvals in 2020, compared with 524,000 in the same period in 2019.

Comment

Today’s money supply data has highlighted a few issues. The opener is that official efforts to raise or reduce the money supply pretty much have to work on the narrow money supply ( we are in an even worse mess if they do not). However by the time we reach broad money other agents are involved such as us and companies and there central banks can find themselves pushing on a string. What they really want to influence is money demand and they will be cheered by the mortgage numbers but worried by the overall ones as well as the consumer or unsecured credit ones.

To make things (hopefully) clearer I have left out the government influence via selling Gilts for cash which depresses the money supply as well as spending more than it receives which expands it. One way of looking at the Bank of England action is offsetting much of the former which we normally look at in terms of keeping bond or Gilt yields low and in some cases negative.

Quite often the law of unintended consequences applies to looking at the money supply as we have 2 issues.

  1. The numbers if we pick out causative factors do not add up to what we think they should be.
  2. The leads and lags in the effect of any changes are quite variable.

The concept of unintended consequences will be on the mind of Governor Andrew Bailey today because when he was head of the FCA he acted to REDUCE overdraft rates and you will see why I have put that in capitals as you observe below what actually has been happening.

The ‘effective’ rate – the actual interest rate paid – on interest-charging overdrafts rose by 4.2 percentage points to 19.00% in August. This is the highest since the series began in 2016, and compares to a rate of 10.32% in March 2020 before new rules on overdraft pricing came into effect.

Also Silvana Tenreyro is not having a good day as we recall her claim that bank profitability is not affected by negative interest-rates. Tell that to HSBC which is selling a theoretically strong holding for a loss…

In another sign that corporate and retail banking perform well in a negative rate environment, Reuters report that HSBC is about to sell its French biz (formerly CCF) for the hefty price of -500M€. Yes, there is a “-” sign. The book value is +8443m€. (That’s a “+” sign) ( @jeuasommenulle )

21 thoughts on “The Bank of England will be very worried about the weakness in consumer credit

  1. I’m a bit confused by your discussion of the ‘profit’ the BoFE makes from QE.

    Yes, it receives Bank Rate (currently 0.10%) on the loan it has made to the APF, but it also pays Bank Rate on the reserves it creates. It’s a wash trade for the BofE. There is no profit.

    The APFF does make a surplus (it doesn’t call it a profit), which is the actual and expected future difference between the yield on the assets it holds (mainly Gilts), less the rate it pays on its liabilities (the loan from the BofE – which is at Bank Rate.)

    This surplus is transferred at regular intervals to the Treasury, under the indemnity agreement between it and the APF. Roughly £100bn has been transferred to date, with another £20bn to £30bn due to the Treasury. This is never viewed as ‘profit’ It’s really just the difference in interest expense that would have resulted if the Treasury had never sold the Gilts now owned by the APF in the first place.

    I do, however, agree with your conclusions. Central banks have understood for some time now that they only have limited influence on the broad money supply. The government sector adds both high powered money (reserves) and broad money (bank deposits) when it spends with or makes a transfer to a private sector, non-bank entity. Taxation drains reserves and bank deposits (when it is a non-bank entity paying the tax). The govt selling bonds to banks only drains reserves from the system, it has no effect on broad money. It is only if non-bank entities choose to purchase these bonds from the banks that broad money will reduce. Conversely, if they choose to sell them back to banks (either outright or under a repo agreement), the broad money supply increases. The central bank has very little control over the broad money supply. They don’t claim otherwise.

    • Hi Robert

      I agree that the operation in government terms is a wash once you take the view the Bank of England is not independent. But it does charge Bank Rate to the APF and for a while that stays with it. The money will be remitted to HM Treasury but in such circles it never does any harm to have at least for a while your hands on the money.

      As to central bankers admitting they cannot control broad money that is not what their public statements imply. I recall the now Baron King saying the Bank of England could easily control any inflation and excess money and others have gone down at least some of that road. However as we both know it is far from as simple as that in practice. For a start we will be on the road of what is money?Which was M4 when the Bank targeted £M3 back in the day….

      I wish they would produce a proper narrow money measure,

      • The BofE receives Bank Rate from the APF and pays Bank Rate to the commercial banks on their reserve balances. Nothing “stays with the BofE”, even for a while. Besides, what possible purpose would be served by the BofE “having its hands on the money”. What does that even mean? The BofE creates most of the UK’s state issued money as its liability. It cannot hold it.

  2. Credit levels should look a lot worse; students should be returned their tuition fees forthwith, & imagine having to pay rent on your prison cell, which is what is happening with students.
    Send them home & give them their money back!

    • By the same argument Tesco should not be charging for the food they deliver to your home and radio presenters working from home should not be paid.

      • If Tesco deliver food to your door that you didn’t order, you can keep it as it is unsolicited.
        If Tesco refuse to deliver food to your door, & then DON’T deliver it, but tell you that you can come & get it, but will still pay, would you accept that?
        As for the radio presenter analogy, in what way is that appropriate?
        Universities should be liable for all reasonable extra student costs, including their rent, & travel costs, which were only undertaken in connection with their education.

        • The student is getting tuition however it is delivered, which has a cost. Equally the tutor is delivering the tuition, maybe from home, for which he reasonably expects payment. The argument about living costs is a different one but you instanced tuition fees in your original post.

          • “The student is getting tuition however it is delivered, which has a cost.”
            _________
            It is not being delivered as per the contract of sale; whether that has a cost is not relevant.
            Flying to the Moon has a cost, but you don’t have to pay it if you booked to go to Benidorm.
            +++++++++
            “Equally the tutor is delivering the tuition, maybe from home, for which he reasonably expects payment.”
            ________
            It is entirely at his employer’s discretion whether the tutor works from home; as the student again has no input into whether he finds this suitable or acceptable for his hefty fee.

            +++++++++++++
            “The argument about living costs is a different one but you instanced tuition fees in your original post.”

            ________
            To quote my original post:
            “…& imagine having to pay rent on your prison cell, which is what is happening with students.”
            ++++++++
            Let’s try to be accurate, shall we?

  3. Hello Shaun,

    So its always the presentation isnt it ?

    Mortgage borrowing is 74% , down 26% and approvals 80% , down 20%.
    (doesn’t that hint that prices are falling ? )

    credit cards was £0.2 billion so thats a third the, down 66.7%

    other forms of consumer credit was £0.1 billion, so thats a fifth , down 80% then.

    and we haven’t ended furlough yet.

    Does it matter you borrow for less ( maybe ) if you can’t get a loan or mortgage because you have no job ?

    I’d say the figures are an absolute fiscal disaster.

    Forbin.

      • Hello Peter,

        one does wonder to what extent the BIRP will need to go .

        zero – nope I don’t think so drops from the emergency rate of 0.5% ro 0.1% did little ( remember before the Covid capers ? ) .

        so I suspect little traction until they go -2% maybe at a push -3% .

        I wonder what stories are needed to stop the public going wacko when they find their pensions pots returing -3% pa. let alone savings………

        uncharted territories – here be dragons !

        Forbin

        • We are in interesting territory and it so depends what you view on assets such as shares and property.

          iF you think property and other assets like shares are going to go pop say a 10% to 20% fall from here, 3% fall in cash on deposit is a small price to pay and lots of high worth individuals or companies must feel the is good job to happen the evidence is negative yield and bonds.

          These are part the reasons have been forecasting more cuts in rates for months now.

  4. Shaun,
    People who need money unlikely to get a bank loan hence credit card adverts at 99.9% APR otherwise equity release or refinance mortgage for those home owners still solvent as lower cost funds?

  5. The deputy governor was very quick to slap down his Anglo-Argentine colleague – you would almost think the BoE is worried about a slide in the GBP to Peso performance. It is probably only the just about positive rate that prevents a slide at the moment.

    It is interesting to see the same bizarre logic being trotted out from La-La Land. Once upon a time, long ago, when normal rates prevailed, the argument was that lowering rates would prompt people to stop saving and start spending. What did they actually do? Fearing a fall in the value of their savings, especially given the fake inflation figures, the average saver simply saved more, dampening consumption. As consumption fell under that pressure and the rapidly rising cost of living somewhere, wages could not rise and growth stalled. So, now what is at least one member proposing? Oh yes, that rates go negative to force banks to lend – when consumption has stalled, so we know where it will finish up. Oh, even that is not working as the new buoyant housing market has not stopped a block on flats https://www.moneyexpert.com/news/hsbc-restricts-mortgage-lending-on-flats/ and we all know know the first place that a house price fall starts.

    With a wave of job losses, credit is not only falling -partly due to people saving travel costs – but it is also declining qualitatively. Past booms have been down to people taking credit and spending it, but now many people are having to resort to credit to maintain their daily lives. If things improve, they will simply pay off that credit and not take any more.

    As the banks ramp up credit card and overdraft costs to try to make up for the lack of lending margin, we see out Argentine chum telling us that ZIRP reduces the possibility of default. True, but the main driver of default is not having the income to service the debt. Not so much Nelsonian vision as Stevie wonder’s.

    • Hi Dave

      I do not think interest-rates are much of a defence for a currency these days. I noted a lot of cheerleading going on for Turkey last week when it raised interest-rates by 2% to 10.25%. I also note that this week the UK Pound £ rose above 10 Lira. I recall one of the economists looking at that area predicting the collapse of the UK Pound £ versus the Lira earlier this year so am considering using him as a reverse indicator.

      As to people having to borrow to keep their lives going you may not have seen this.

      https://www.apple.com/uk/shop/browse/financing

      You can get an Apple Watch on finance which is a case of back to my grandparents world…

  6. I’m dealing with the BoE and the FCA in relation to a banks regulatory breach of the CHAPS Reference Manual.

    The BoE have told me to contact the FCA as its a conduct issue.

    So i contacted the FCA and they told me to contact the BoE as they’re responsible for the CHAPS.

    So it would seem no one is in charge of banks breaching CHAPS transfer regulations, when they total around £350 BILLION per day.

    This nation is a f’en joke and run by parasitic clowns.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.