Thanks to QE the UK is paying less interest on a much larger debt

A feature of the economic response to the Covid-19 pandemic is that this time around we have seen fiscal policy deployed on a large scale. This morning we have been brought up to date on much of the UK version of this as the official numbers have been released.

Public sector net borrowing (excluding public sector banks, PSNB ex) in the FYE March 2021 is estimated to have been £303.1 billion, £246.1 billion more than in the FYE March 2020 and the highest nominal public sector borrowing in any financial year since records began in the FYE March 1947. ( FYE = Financial Year End )

So there is a guide to the size and we can look at it another way.

Expressed as a ratio of gross domestic product (GDP), public sector net borrowing (excluding public sector banks, PSNB ex) in the FYE March 2021 was 14.5%, the highest such ratio since the end of World War Two, when in FYE March 1946 it was 15.2%.

For comparison purposes we borrowed some 10.1% of GDP when the credit crunch hit. So a peak for peacetime but not war as in the main part of the first world war and the early part of the second one we borrowed around 27% of GDP pretty consistently.

Much of this has been a choice as we see below.

Central government bodies are estimated to have spent £941.7 billion on day-to-day activities (current expenditure) in the FYE March 2021, £203.2 billion more than in the FYE March 2020; this includes £78.2 billion expenditure on Coronavirus job support schemes.

We also see signs of it being voluntary in the receipts data because whilst there are falls due to the decline in economic activity we have also seen VAT and Stamp Duty cuts.

Central government tax receipts are estimated to have been £523.6 billion in the FYE March 2021 (on a national accounts basis), £34.2 billion lower than in the FYE March 2020, with notable falls in taxes on production such as Value Added Tax (VAT), Business Rates and Fuel Duty.

So an extraordinary effort and let me give you a context. Because the other party involved here has been the Bank of England which by my rough calculations bought some £310 billion of UK sovereign bonds. As it and the £303 billion are both estimates ( the Bank of England numbers are muddied by refinancing of maturing bonds) we see that if we use a broad brush it has oiled this. Care is needed as it has not explicitly financed this as it does not buy new bond issues for a Beatles week or 8 days but it has been smoothing the way. We have been fed a lot of psychobabble about how they have calculated the QE purchases but I think we have just noted the reality don’t you?

First Rule of OBR Club

This has had yet another stormer as we note this from Julian Jessop.

On #3, in November the OBR forecast UK government borrowing of £394bn in 2020/21 (19% of GDP)

In March it revised this down to £355bn (16.9%)

The first official estimate from the ONS today was £303bn (14.5%), £24bn *lower* than the March forecast on a like-for-like basis

Actually it slightly unfair because of this.

The OBR borrowing forecast for the FYE March 2021 includes an estimated £27.2 billion in expenditure on calls under the government loan guarantee schemes whereas Office for National Statistics (ONS) outturn data does not yet include any such estimates.

You would think that by chance they would once be right but they continue to be so consistently wrong.

For newer readers the first rule of OBR Club is that the OBR is always wrong.

National Debt

This has been volatile for two reasons. The first we have been noting above and the second is the swings in economic output we have seen meaning that when we divide by GDP its changes have a big impact.

Public sector net debt (excluding public sector banks, PSND ex) was £2,141.7 billion at the end of March 2021 or around 97.7% of gross domestic product (GDP), maintaining a level not seen since the early 1960s.

Along the way we have noted that it will at times be above 100% then lose it as GDP swings and debt rises. As the economy opens up but we still borrow more it will remain tight for a bit.

Another context for this is how much we pay to run the debt and we immediately see a consequence of the QE bond buying by the Bank of England.

Interest payments on central government debt were £38.8 billion in the FYE March 2021, £9.3 billion less than in the FYE March 2020. Changes in debt interest are largely a result of movements in the Retail Prices Index to which index-linked bonds are pegged.

The second sentence is something of a standard and our official statisticians have forgotten to update it. Yes lower inflation has reduced our debt costs via a lower RPI. But this year we have issued loads of new conventional bonds which have cost very little due to the way the Bank of England has driven Gilt yields lower. We have even had periods ( summer and autumn last year and early this) where we were paid to issue up to the 6/7 year maturities and at one point the ten-year yield fell to 0.1%. So if you want a broad sweep we borrowed a very large sum for (nearly) nothing.

This year will be harder because inflation is rising and so have Gilt yields. So there will be an impact on debt costs. We have a signal of that from the monthly numbers as the £1.3 billion of last March is replaced by £2 billion this March.

Comment

I though I would flip over now to economic prospects as they are the main driver in what happens next regarding the UK fiscal position. The opener from the official data was hopeful and positive.

Retail sales volumes continued to recover in March 2021, with an increase of 5.4% when compared with the previous month reflecting the effect of the easing of coronavirus (COVID-19) restrictions on consumer spending; sales were 1.6% higher than February 2020 before the impact of the coronavirus pandemic.

Tucked away in the detail was another signal of times returning to a more normal level.

Automotive fuel retailers witnessed an 11.1% growth in sales volumes in March 2021, the first monthly growth reported since a 0.1% rise in October 2020.

There is scope for more in some areas and if you sell clothing you must be desperate for normal times.

Whilst the 17.5% monthly growth in the clothing sector is a significant increase in sales volumes, they remain 41.5% below the level in February 2020 before the pandemic began.

This was backed up by this via Reuters.

The GfK Consumer Confidence Index increased to -15 in April from -16 in March, its highest since a survey conducted in early March last year, before the country went into lockdown.

In the year before the pandemic, the index averaged -11 and it sank to an 11-year low of -36 during the depths of last year’s lockdown.

Also by this from the IHSMarkit PMI business survey.

The seasonally adjusted IHS Markit/CIPS Flash UK Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index® (PMI®) – a composite single-figure indicator of manufacturing performance – registered 60.7, up from 58.9 in March and the highest since July 1994.

The cautionary note is that they got French manufacturing completely wrong in February ( told us it was up when it fell by 4.7%), so take care.

But the big picture is of an opening economy that is picking up speed. How it will be broken down will be interesting as several people have told me they are keen to shop in person again for things they have bought online. So let’s see what happens to this.

The proportion spent online decreased to 34.7% in March 2021, down from 36.2% in February 2021 but still above the 23.1% reported in March 2020;

Oh and some seem yo be taking this more literally than others.

Medical goods retailers also reported strong monthly growth of 29.4% with anecdotal evidence from retailers suggesting an increase in the purchase of mobility equipment from older consumers who were venturing out more following the vaccination rollout.

 

 

 

 

 

22 thoughts on “Thanks to QE the UK is paying less interest on a much larger debt

  1. a regular reminder that it is a policy choice for a currency issuing government to pay interest to holders of its liabilities (banknotes, coins, reserves, gilts, bills and NS&I savings products). It is also a policy choice as to how much (if anything) it should pay to those that hold its liabilities (ie those that already have money). Paying interest is just the same as any other government spending. The decision to undertake government spending is always a political one. A policy choice.

    There is no reason at all for such a government to issue bonds or bills (or NS&I savings products). It does so as a public service. Again, it chooses to do so. It’s a policy choice to pay more money to holders of bonds than to holders of currency (which can be zero). Is it a good policy? That’s what we, as a society, need to discuss. What is such a policy meant to achieve? Does it achieve it? Are we merely implementing such a policy because that’s what we’ve always done? What are the reasons for the government to provide a guaranteed income to those that already have money?

    Instead we ponder how it can be possible that the quantity of govt liabilities can increase but at the same time the interest cost associated with those liabilities can fall. We agonise over what might happen if interest rates should rise in the future, moved higher by some invisible hand that we don’t understand. But the answer is simple! Spending on govt interest payments is low right now because the govt has decided it should be. There are more important things for it to be spending money on. If interest rates should rise in the future, it’s because the govt has decided it’s good policy to increase spending in this area and to pay more money to those with money. Will it be a good policy to do that? That’s what we need to discuss!

    • Hi Robert

      What about the impact on pension funds?

      Do you think a pension fund would choose to buy a gilt yielding 0.1% or a gilt yielding 2+%. It only buys low yielding gilts because it is forced to by the government which issues them.

      • so, as a policy choice, the government could choose to pay pension savers to save for their pension. After all, it wasn’t so long ago that George Osborne directed NS&I to pay higher interest rates to savers over a certain age. It was a somewhat bizarre move, IMO, but demonstrates that it is a choice of the government to pay interest on its liabilities, how much to pay and even who to pay it to.

        But as a policy does it get us anywhere? Sure the govt can pay pension savers to save. It can match contributions if it wants. It can give everyone a lump of money for them to call their pension savings. It can make sure everyone retires with a multi-million £ pension pot. Or it can choose not to. Doing any of the above doesn’t alter the inalienable fact that when pension savers retire they will only be able to consume the goods and services the economy is producing and which aren’t being consumed by the then current workers. Yes, we can give pension savers more money. we can give them as much as we like, but it won’t change this fact. The more you pay savers, the more they will have to spend, which is almost always going to be…….inflationary. it doesn’t necessarily mean there will be more goods and services available to buy with that extra money, which, as the first ten minutes of your first ever economic lecture would have told you, will cause an adjustment up in prices until a new equilibrium is reached. There is no real societal advantage in paying savers to save.

    • I smell MMT.. it’s a policy choice until your currency comes under pressure then a whole load of “policy choices” get forced on you.

  2. What should make any person who thinks these policies of QE and monetisation are a good idea step back and think for a moment is the principal that anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size would surely question a scheme that guarantees wealth and endless prosperity for zero effort.

    Surely in the history of mankind during the last thousand years or so, why hasn’t anyone ever thought of this financial perpetual motion machine before now? Why does anyone have to bother paying taxes if the government via the Bank of England/Fed/ECB/BOJ can just magic up the money out of thin air to cover any deficit, in fact taking it to is logical conclusion, why bother to get up in the morning and go to work or take the risk and effort of starting a business, the government can just give everyone free money and we can spend it.

    But of course if you start to think like that, you begin to realise that’s exactly where this is all leading to – everyone relying on the government for its handout and living, but but but.. wasn’t that what happened in Soviet Russia – isn’t that communism?

    Yep, sure is and its coming, slowly in stages, Covid and the insane climate change regulations and changes will slowly destroy whats left of our economies and independence until gradually everyone is relying on some kind of benefit or payment from the state.

    • one of the best PR exercises of all time must surely be to have persuaded everyone that the government paying more money to people who already have money is going to make those people less wealthy and everyone else better off!

      Now, who would have the resources to mount such a campaign and sustain it over hundreds of years? It surely must take a lot of …….money! Brilliant! You can get the government to pay you the money you need to persuade everyone else that the government should pay you even more and that it would be in everybody else’s best interests to do so!

  3. ITV did a 30 minutes programme on the lockdown and easing talking about the billions which Joe Public has been saving.

    Watching some of those interviewed the message seemed to be what Viv Nichols the pools millionaire once said “spend spend spend”.

    This is all very well but we need to be investing in our future and the young today dont seem to understand that. Maybe I am getting too old having forgotten what I was like when I was younger !

    • Hi Peter

      This may cheer you up from the March public finances.

      “the remaining £11.3 billion was spent on capital investment such as infrastructure.”

      That was up by 44.6% or £3.5 billion on last year. So the government is investing although of course we do not know much about the detail of what it spent the money on.

  4. Shaun,
    Why issue Gilts ( with RPI risks needing control ) when gneral interest rates historically low and longer terms ( 100 years?) available is it a question of retaining confidence?

    • Hi Chris

      That’s a good question and adds to one I was asked for this week’s podcast. That was why have we not issued more longer-dated Gilts?

      I think maybe the Debt Management Office has been so busy with all the changes it has not been in a position to do some strategic thinking. But at these yield levels and even more so when we could issue 50 year Gilts for a yield of 0.75% there is a disincentive to issue index-linked ones. Any burst of inflation will be expensive.

      Maybe issue one or two to keep the market in existence as circumstances may change but less than the 11.2% of issuance planned for this fiscal year,

  5. “Thanks to QE the UK is paying less interest on a much larger debt”

    …And it’s paying it to savers like you & I.

    • Exactly!

      But we’re still saving, right? The government doesn’t need to pay us to save, we were going to do that anyway.

      Thought experiment: If, as a saver, the government were paying you 5% of your savings each year, as a guaranteed income, would you be more likely or less likely to spend a bit more than you are with the govt paying you effectively zero (ignore the situation currently where it’s difficult to spend)? With a guaranteed income would you be more or less likely to spend?

      I think I know the answer – most people would spend more if their income was higher (the income here being what the govt pays you to save). In that respect, higher interest rates are inflationary and lower interest rates are deflationary. And that’s what we’ve been seeing. Inflation falls, so CBs cut rates (which cuts the amount the govt spends on debt interest payments), which causes inflation to fall again, so the CB cuts rates and it keeps doing this until rates are zero or in -ve territory and there’s still no inflation. If govts want inflation at 2%, they simply need to spend more. Now, that spending could be paying more to people with money and letting them go out and spend, but do you not think there are better things for the govt to spend its money on?

      • ref: “but do you not think there are better things for the govt to spend its money on?”

        oh almost certanly much better things , its getting the bu@@3rs to do it is the problem…..

        Forbin

      • Thought experiment: If, as a saver, the government were paying you 5% of your savings each year, as a guaranteed income, would you be more likely or less likely to spend a bit more than you are with the govt paying you effectively zero (ignore the situation currently where it’s difficult to spend)? With a guaranteed income would you be more or less likely to spend?

        Not only would I be more likely to spend more; I’d be likely to save less. That may seem counter-intuitive, but the reason most people save, is not for goods or services, it’s for financial security. The less I feel I have to save to that purpose, the more I spend.

        • As a borrower I should be tempted to borrow more if interest rates are lower, but I’m not – a borrower, that is.
          One thing we’ve discovered over the last 10 or 12 years is pushing your monetary foot to the floorboards doesn’t make the economic car go faster. Looks like the monetary transmission is broken.

          • a) borrowers haven’t really been tempted to borrow more (apart from to buy a house, which creates the money savers want, but doesn’t contribute to consumer inflation)

            b) there are way more people wanting to save than borrow to spend – partly to do with how we have decided to organise retirement in many developed economies.

            c) many people tell me that as returns have fallen, they want to save more, not less.

            d) monetary policy transmission is not so much broken: it has never really worked! Plenty of people (including some central bankers) now thinking that govt spending on debt servicing falling (which is the primary effect of CBs lowering rates) is very deflationary. Without any other monetary policy channels acting against that with sufficient force and with savers wanting to save more when faced with lower returns, the outcome of lower rates is actually lower inflation.

            That might well be borne out by the evidence: countries that have cut rates into negative territory (effectively now a tax instead of govt spending) have seen inflation remain stubbornly lower than countries that have kept rates positive.

          • To paraphrase the old Economist joke- I guess a CB is someone who sees monetary policy not working in practice and wonders if it will not work in Theory.

  6. Pingback: Thanks to QE the UK is paying less interest on a much larger debt - Enri$hed Feed

Leave a comment

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